BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Electoral Commission

The Vice-Chamberlain of The Household reported to the House, That the Address of 15th September, praying that Her Majesty will appoint as Electoral Commissioners:
	(1) Angela Frances, Baroness Browning, with effect from 1 October 2010 for the period ending on 30 September 2014;
	(2) David Ross Howarth, with effect from 1 October 2010 for the period ending on 30 September 2014;
	(3) Roy Francis, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, with effect from 1 October 2010 for the period ending on 30 September 2014; and
	(4) Rt. Hon. George Newlands Reid, with effect from 1 October 2010 for the period ending on 30 September 2012,
	was presented to Her Majesty, who was graciously pleased to comply with the request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked-

Tax Compliance

Nia Griffith: What steps his Department is taking to increase the level of tax compliance.

David Gauke: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced £900 million of investment in Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to tackle avoidance, evasion and fraud, sending a clear signal that the spending review will be focused on both fairness and deficit reduction. It will include an increase in prosecutions and steps to tackle organised criminal excise smuggling. HMRC also recognises the importance of helping businesses to get their tax right and has launched additional education and guidance packages in order to do so.

Nia Griffith: Given the enormous importance of reducing the tax gap, and thereby reducing the deficit, what assurances can the Minister give that actually he will be taking on more tax officers and ensuring a good geographical spread to make sure we get in the maximum tax revenues possible?

David Gauke: As was made clear in the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's statement, the Government are determined to reduce the tax gap. It currently stands at £42 billion. It is too high, but we are determined to take measures to address it and we have already announced proposals by which we can reduce the tax gap.

Budget (Regional Differences)

Kevin Brennan: What representations he has received on variations between the English regions and constituent parts of the UK in respect of the effects of the measures in the June 2010 Budget.

Paul Blomfield: What representations he has received on variations between the English regions and constituent parts of the UK in respect of the effects of the measures in the June 2010 Budget.

Danny Alexander: We received representations from many interested parties from all parts of the UK and at the time of the Budget we published details of the impact of the Budget on each English region and each devolved Administration.

Kevin Brennan: Does not the Government's proposed closure of the passport office in Newport show that, far from us all being in this together, these Budget cuts will fall disproportionately on the poorest parts of the UK? Is this closure inevitable?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for the question, and I understand the sensitivity in the community about that decision. The spending review will, of course, result in some difficult decisions having to be made all over the country. I can however say to the hon. Gentleman that we are looking very closely at the regional and national impact of particular decisions. One of the reasons why the Deputy Prime Minister announced a regional growth fund for England is to deal with those issues, and I hope very much that the Welsh Assembly Government might follow suit.

Paul Blomfield: Will the Chief Secretary acknowledge the analysis undertaken by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, whose head at that time now leads the Office for Budget Responsibility, that found that the measures in the emergency Budget will hit those on lowest incomes hardest and will have a disproportionate impact on constituencies in the north?

Danny Alexander: If anything demonstrates the independence of the OBR it is the appointment of the head of the IFS to be the head of the OBR, and I hope that will put an end to any such criticisms from the hon. Gentleman's side of the House. The analysis was interesting, but the analysis we published at the time of the Budget was robust and soundly based. I have carefully studied the IFS's additional analysis, and I think it makes some assumptions that push the boundaries. As a result it is not an analysis the Treasury would stand by. I would stand by the view that the measures we announced in the Budget were progressive and fair and hit the people on the highest incomes hardest.

Charlie Elphicke: Can the Chief Secretary tell the House the benefits that the regional growth fund will have for neglected regions, in particular coastal and seaside towns?

Danny Alexander: I fear that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until a week tomorrow for the spending review announcement to hear details of that sort, but I can tell him that the purpose of the regional growth fund is precisely to ensure that areas hit hardest by public spending cuts or areas most dependent on the public sector have an opportunity to put forward proposals for measures that would support their economic growth. The regional growth fund has been established to meet those proposals.

James Morris: This builds on what the Chief Secretary has just said. Does he agree that what we need with the regional growth fund is a much more focused regional policy, rather than the waste that came from the previous Government and their one-size-fits-all regional policy?

Danny Alexander: I would agree with that, although I am not going to go over the litany of spending by regional development agencies. Having a regional growth fund that is able to respond to bids from communities, along with a much more devolved set of arrangements, through local enterprise partnerships, which require local authorities and local businesses to work together on what is best for their areas, is a much more dynamic approach, and it is likely better to meet the needs of those areas.

David Hanson: What account will the Chief Secretary take of last week's joint statement by the leaders of the devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? They said that the proposed cuts in the comprehensive spending review are
	"too fast and too deep",
	that
	"Front loading the cuts into the next two years is...the wrong approach"
	and that a failure to promote growth will damage the private sector? Will he now listen to those voices, which do not just argue for the public sector, but argue that the cuts that he proposes will damage private sector growth and private sector industry?

Danny Alexander: First, may I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role, congratulate him on his appointment and wish him luck with it? The question he asks is important: what is the impact on the devolved Administrations? As he knows, the budget for devolved Administrations is set by the Barnett formula, which reflects the decisions we make for Departments within the UK, and so it falls out as a consequence of the spending review decisions. Of course our decision to protect the national health service-something that the Labour party was not willing to do-will reflect well on the devolved Administrations' settlement. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to enter credibly into this debate, he and his colleagues should make some credible proposals of their own as to how they would tackle the deficit.

Budget Deficit Reduction

Marcus Jones: What recent representations he has received on steps to reduce the budget deficit.

Glyn Davies: What recent representations he has received on steps to reduce the budget deficit.

George Osborne: The Government's plan to tackle the record budget deficit they inherited has been supported by the CBI, the OECD and, now, the International Monetary Fund. We have received more than 60,000 representations from the public as to how to go about deficit reduction and many of their suggestions are being put into effect. To date, we have received no proposals and no suggestions from the official Opposition, who created the deficit in the first place.

Marcus Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. With the country set to pay £43 billion in interest in 2010-11, I am reassured that the general public have been willing to contribute to the tough decisions required of this Government to turn our economy around. Has he received any helpful advice from the Labour party, past or present, other than that from Tony Blair?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about debt interest; this country is now paying £120 million a day in debt interest. Debt interest under the previous Government was forecast to rise to £60 billion a year, making it one of the largest items of Government expenditure. He talks about suggestions from Members of Parliament. The new leader of the Labour party said:
	"I think whoever is the Labour leader will, by the time of the spending review, have to show that they have an alternative plan".
	So the clock is ticking.

Glyn Davies: The Chancellor attended the IMF conference at the weekend. Can he share with us what our international partners are saying about the coalition Government's efforts to deal with the deficit?

George Osborne: As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the IMF's article IV study of the United Kingdom said:
	"The government's strong and credible multi-year fiscal deficit reduction plan is essential to ensure debt sustainability."
	That is in marked contrast to last year's IMF report on the UK. At the IMF annual meetings, which I attended last weekend, it was made clear that concerns about sovereign debt issues in Europe were one of the greatest threats to the world recovery. Of course, the decisions that we have taken in this House have moved Britain out of the financial danger zone and helped to deal with that potential threat.

Derek Twigg: On reducing the budget deficit and the issue of fairness, how does the Chancellor square the fact that his local authority has had a cut of only £600,000 to its education budget with the fact that Halton, the 30th most deprived authority, has had a cut of more than £1.2 million? How is that fair?

George Osborne: Decisions on local government allocations are properly a matter for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, but I make the observation that we face a series of tough decisions because of the economic mess that the Labour party left us. To date, it is living in complete denial: there is not one single suggestion from one single Labour Member on how to reduce the budget deficit, or even achieve the £44 billion of cuts on which Labour fought the last election.

Andrew Love: Can the Chancellor confirm or deny reports in the weekend press that he has given the Governor of the Bank of England the green light to increase quantitative easing, to deal with the policy that the Chancellor is pursuing on the deficit?

George Osborne: What I said at the weekend was that I would follow the exact same procedure that my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), pursued when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The fact that that is regarded as something of a surprise by the Labour party shows how far it has departed from the centre ground of British politics.

David Ruffley: Our net contribution to the EU is, amazingly, projected to double in this Parliament from £4.7 billion to £9.5 billion a year. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and many of my Bury St Edmunds constituents that if we are to cut the deficit, we need to cut our spending on the EU?

George Osborne: It is good to see my hon. Friend. I make the observation that the situation is, unfortunately, yet another legacy of the previous Government.  [Interruption.] Well, Labour Members obviously do not know the history: Tony Blair gave away our Budget rebate in return for the French reforming the common agricultural policy. So far as I have noticed, that deal has not held, and our contributions are rapidly rising. We have made strong arguments at the European level for similar budget restraints in the EU to those that member states are having to impose domestically. Of course, that will be our negotiating stance as we go into the new budget review period.

Alan Johnson: Will the timing of the spending cuts that are to be announced next week be exactly as laid out in June's emergency Budget, and will the Chancellor confirm that the aim continues to be that the deficit will be eliminated by 2015?

George Osborne: First, I should welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role on behalf of all Government Members. I did the job for five years, and I hope that he does it for even longer than I did. The answer to his question is yes.

Alan Johnson: Well, the reason I ask is that there was some speculation at the weekend, when the Energy Secretary suggested, in a rather unfortunate yachting analogy, that he would not be "lashed to the mast" with a particular set of spending numbers. That is important, because from my vast experience in this job I am absolutely clear about this: the Chancellor says that the deficit was wrong and that his emergency Budget measures were unavoidable, but I believe that it is the other way round. The deficit was unavoidable if we were to avoid financial meltdown, and his Budget proposals were entirely wrong-wrong because they would, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, have two and a half times the adverse effect on the poorest as on the richest in our society, and wrong because he is seeking to cut public spending before there is any momentum for private sector spending in our economy.

George Osborne: Quite frankly, being in opposition involves choices, just as being in government does. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the Budget; there is a simple choice before the House today, which is whether we proceed with a graduate tax. Lord Browne's report says that such a tax would add £3 billion to the deficit and would not produce savings until 2041. That is a real choice on the deficit before us today. The right hon. Gentleman is the shadow Chancellor and opposes a graduate tax; is he going to assert his authority over Opposition tax policy?

Debt Management (Bank of England)

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Whether he has assessed the merits of returning responsibility for debt management to the Bank of England.

Mark Hoban: The current institutional framework separates operational responsibility for debt and monetary policy by the establishment of a debt management agency. This properly reflects the importance that we attach to having a clear institutional divide between responsibility for setting interest rates and for issuing Government debt. The Government have no plans to return responsibility for debt management to the Bank of England.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: With the return of banking supervision to the Bank of England, I wonder whether it is worth considering giving the Bank of England its debt management responsibilities back. An active participant in markets may well prove to be a better regulator than one that approaches regulation from a more intellectual sense.

Mark Hoban: The Bank of England engages in market activities on a day-to-day basis, but before 1997 the same institutional separation existed, with the Chancellor setting interest rates and the Bank responsible for debt management. The separation of responsibilities improves transparency and confidence in debt management and helps to keep the cost of Government debt as low as possible. My hon. Friend will appreciate how important that is, given the size of the deficit that we inherited from Labour.

Christopher Leslie: But is it not clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) was saying, the raising of the spectre of a return to quantitative easing signalled by the Chancellor last week to the Bank of England is a clear sign that the anti-growth strategy pursued by the Government risks a major slow-down in our economy? Will the Minister take responsibility and stop playing ideological games with fiscal policy in the hope that monetary policy will miraculously pick up all the pieces?

Mark Hoban: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. He has been out of Parliament for the past five years and he should perhaps take this opportunity to reflect on the record of his predecessors and the deficit that they racked up in Government. Is he departing from the practice that the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer followed when it came to quantitative easing?

Peter Tapsell: I am a strong supporter of quantitative easing as a form of management of the economy, but are Treasury Ministers aware that some hedge funds are making large profits by arbitraging between short and long interest rates when central banks give advance notice of their intention to intervene in foreign markets?

Mark Hoban: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the implementation of any policy on quantitative easing is the responsibility of the Bank of England, and it will take into account those factors.

Rachel Reeves: Does the Minister welcome the fact that the efforts of the Debt Management Office mean that the average duration of debt in the UK is around 13 years, several years longer than any other country in Europe? It is one of the many reasons why the UK is not in the position of Ireland or Greece.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Lady, who follows these matters quite carefully, will reflect that before the election long-term yields on Government debt in the UK were moved in line with those in countries such as Portugal, Greece and Spain. After the election, the margin between UK gilts and the German Bund has narrowed rather than widened, as has been the case with other European bond rates.

Office for Budget Responsibility

Henry Smith: What steps he is taking to ensure the independence of the Office for Budget Responsibility.

George Osborne: The independence of the Office for Budget Responsibility is central to its credibility. With the approval of the Treasury Committee, I have appointed Mr Robert Chote to be its new chair. Today I am also appointing the distinguished economist Stephen Nickell and the experienced forecaster Graham Parker to serve alongside Mr Chote as permanent members of the budget responsibility committee. I am also publishing new terms of reference that safeguard the independence of the OBR, and copies are available in the Vote Office. I have asked the OBR to publish its autumn forecasts on the economy and the public finances on Monday 29 November.

Henry Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I warmly welcome the creation of the OBR, at last, as an independent economic forecaster. I know that the Treasury Committee has raised a number of concerns, including the location of the OBR and whether the veto over the chairmanship of the Select Committee will be in the Bill.

George Osborne: The short answer to my hon. Friend's questions is yes. The OBR will move out of the Treasury-in the period immediately after the general election, that was the quickest way to establish it-to a permanent home. The choice of location will be for the permanent chair of the OBR who, I believe, will make a statement on that later today. I think the veto given to the Treasury Committee is the first of its kind in this Parliament, and will be enshrined in legislation.

Stephen Timms: The Chancellor has announced two new appointments to the budget responsibility committee today. In line with the Treasury Committee's recommendation, will he extend its veto to those two appointments, as well as to the position of the chair? Will he invite the OBR to comment, as the Select Committee envisages, on the fiscal mandate?

George Osborne: My answer to the right hon. Gentleman is yes and no-yes to the first part of the question. I listened very carefully to what the Treasury Committee said about the two other members of the budget responsibility committee, and I propose that it should indeed have a veto over those two appointments, which were made on the recommendation of a panel that included Robert Chote. I made the suggested appointments, but it will be for the Treasury Committee presumably to hold hearings and hopefully give its approval.
	I do not propose to follow the second path that the right hon. Gentleman suggested. If the OBR begins commenting on the fiscal mandate, it intrudes on what is a legitimate matter of debate in the House between elected representatives who have strong views on this. I want to do everything I can to preserve the independence of the OBR, not just for this Government but for future Governments as well.

Andrew Tyrie: Would the Chancellor just confirm that the veto on the other two members of the OBR will function in exactly the same way as it would for the chairman? Would he also confirm that, in line with our recommendations, the OBR will be permitted at the request of Opposition parties at election time to examine their fiscal policies as well?

George Osborne: What I would say to my hon. Friend in response to his first point is yes, the procedure that I propose is exactly the same, unless he wants to volunteer some alternative method. On his second point, this is genuinely a matter that should be debated in the House in a non-partisan way, because it does not affect just this Parliament. There is a question of whether we want the OBR to be able to cost Opposition policies at the time of a general election. I propose to have discussions with Opposition party leaders about whether that is the appropriate thing to do, and it would be a legitimate matter for the House to debate and decide.

Departmental Spending Challenge

Rehman Chishti: What recent representations he has received on his Department's spending challenge.

Justine Greening: Many, many people have got involved with the spending challenge review, and on the spending challenge website we received more than 100,000 suggestions from members of the public, including more than 60,000 from public sector workers. We also had correspondence across government, including 10,000 e-mails and letters to the Treasury alone. I know that many other Departments received similar correspondence. Finally, Ministers have been out and about across the country, and have had meetings in their Ministries with a range of stakeholders to make sure that we make the right decisions.

Rehman Chishti: Is there still time for new members of the shadow Cabinet to contribute to the spending challenge, given that they should have £44 billion of ideas to hand?

Justine Greening: No, it is not too late for members of the shadow Cabinet to get involved with this process. They had an opportunity last night, as you remember Mr Speaker, on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, but they failed to take it. I think that that may be because they do not have the capacity or the courage to come up with their own suggestions.

Angela Eagle: Can the Minister confirm well-sourced reports that she has received Treasury advice to delay some of next year's proposed spending cuts? How, if that is true, does it square with the harsh cuts rhetoric that we have heard from Treasury Ministers since the election? Will she take this opportunity to confirm that it is her decision, and that of the Front Benchers, to stick with the £23 billion of cuts that we know they are planning for next year?

Justine Greening: We are clear about what we need to do to sort out the last Labour Government's terrible legacy-a Government, incidentally, who left unemployment higher than when they took office. We will stick to our economic plan, which, as we have heard, the IMF and the OECD think is the right one, and it is the plan that stands alone, because the Labour party simply has no alternative.

Duncan Hames: Among her responses to the spending challenge, will the Minister bring into line the Local Government (Early Termination of Employment) (Discretionary Compensation) Regulations 2006, which have enabled four former Wiltshire council bosses to share remuneration of almost £2 million in their final 12 months in office?

Justine Greening: We are looking at a range of ways we can ensure that we get the most value from every pound of taxpayers' money, and we will stop at nothing to make sure that we get there in the end. We are going through a difficult process with many difficult decisions, but we aim to ensure that all of them are tough, but still fair.

Ian Lucas: Does the Minister agree with her very good friend Sir Philip Green that one of the ways of spending money effectively would be for the Government to delay their payments to small business?

Justine Greening: Sir Philip Green is one of those people I was talking about in my first answer: somebody who has got involved trying to come up with constructive suggestions on how we can tackle the fiscal deficit left by the hon. Gentleman's party. The bottom line is that we want to ensure that we support business. His party was against the package of corporation tax reductions that we brought forward in the Budget, which will support companies across this country. We also got rid of his party's job tax.

Whips Offices

Peter Bone: What recent discussions he has had with the Minister for the Cabinet Office on the cost to the public purse of the Government Whips Office and the Opposition Whips Office.

George Osborne: I have had discussions with my right hon. Friend on the overall Budget for the Cabinet Office as part of the spending review. As my hon. Friends might expect, I am keen to ensure maximum value for money from the Government Whips Office. When it comes to the Opposition Whips Office, that is an area of public spending where I am prepared to tolerate inefficiency and poor leadership.

Peter Bone: My right hon. Friend will be aware that during this Parliament, the additional salaries paid to Whips will be more than £6 million. As we now have a Backbench Business Committee and will soon have a House Committee, would that not be an area for cutting? After all, we are all in it together.

George Osborne: Unfortunately, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the Government Chief Whip, is not here to listen to that question, but as Ministers in the Government Whips have already taken a 5% pay cut and had their salaries frozen during the Parliament, so they have already shown some restraint. If my hon. Friend wants to catch the ear of the Chief Whip in the Aye Lobby tonight, he can do so.

Clive Efford: Has the Government Whips Office had cause to contact the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, following his comments last week? Has having the Liberal Democrats as part of the Government increased the costs of the Government Whips Office?

George Osborne: The presence of the Liberal Democrats in the coalition means that two parties are working together to sort out a problem that one party created.

Tax System

Mike Freer: What steps his Department is taking to simplify the tax system.

David Gauke: The Government are committed to simplifying the tax system. To help to achieve that, the Government have established the independent Office of Tax Simplification. Business and tax professionals have also consistently pointed to the way in which tax policy is developed, legislated and implemented as a contributing factor to overall complexity. We published a discussion document alongside the June Budget setting out proposals for a new approach to tax policy making.

Mike Freer: Will the Minister advise on the progress of the interim reports for the Office of Tax Simplification, specifically on IR35 and tax reliefs?

David Gauke: The OTS is looking at two areas. One is reliefs and exemptions, and although the timing of the publication is to be finalised and that is a matter for the OTS, there will be an interim report, I believe in November, on this area. With regard to the reform of small businesses, including IR35, the OTS intends to report in time for the Chancellor to take into account its views in preparation for the Budget.

Tax System

Lorely Burt: What steps he is taking to make the tax system fairer.

David Gauke: The Government believe that the tax system should give more support to those on low to middle incomes and reward the efforts of those who choose to work. At the June Budget, we announced a £1,000 increase in the personal allowance for 2011-12, which will remove 880,000 of the lowest-income taxpayers from tax altogether. Our longer-term goal is to raise the allowance to £10,000, with real-terms steps in that direction every year.

Lorely Burt: I am grateful for that answer. May I ask my hon. Friend what the coalition Government can do for my constituent Kath Hemmings and many like her? Kath is a single mum who has raised her daughter Victoria with no support and has at the same time worked hard and built her career. She is on the higher rate of tax by just a few pounds. Many children in Victoria's class have two parents who earn under the top rate and have kept their benefit. What can we do to make things fairer for Kath, Victoria and many like them?

David Gauke: I understand the concern that my hon. Friend raises. The situation that we face is that there will be difficult decisions to get the deficit down-a point that Government Members appreciate. The difficulty is that looking at the issue on a household basis would mean creating a complex and large bureaucracy. We have come up with a proposal that will ensure that the poorest households are protected and will continue to receive child benefit.

Angus MacNeil: I welcome the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's weekend announcement about a rural fuel derogation, which will make the tax system infinitely fairer in the islands and is a victory for common sense. I first raised the issue a few years ago. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that time was wasted by the previous Labour Government, who sat on their hands and did nothing for the islands?
	When will the fuel derogation come into being? Will the Minister acknowledge that, despite that welcome step, we in the islands will still be paying more tax per litre than those on the mainland?

David Gauke: Was time wasted by the previous Government? Yes. What will the timing be? Negotiations need to be had with Europe, and there will be further announcements in due course.

VAT (Small Businesses)

Simon Kirby: What recent representations he has received on the time taken by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to provide VAT numbers to new small businesses.

David Gauke: Treasury Ministers receive representations on a range of subjects from organisations and individuals about aspects of service delivery.

Simon Kirby: I thank the Minister. A number of businesses in Brighton have waited a very long time to receive their VAT numbers. Does the Minister agree that the prevention of fraud is as important as providing a prompt service?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is right. There is a need to balance the desire for a quick service with ensuring that we do not allow fraudulent registrations. Between April and September this year, 57.4% of applications were processed within the target 10 calendar days. There was an improvement in the rate during August and September, when 71.4% and 79.7% of applications were processed within the 10 days.

Economic Growth

Karen Lumley: What assessment he has made of the effect on GDP of proposals to increase the level of economic growth in the June 2010 Budget.

Justine Greening: A key part of the emergency Budget was to make sure that we rebalanced our economy on to a more sustainable, private-led footing with economic growth taking place. As I said, we introduced a range of measures to support business, but we did not stop at that; we now have a second Finance Bill that brings forward further measures. The Office for Budget Responsibility's analysis following the emergency Budget showed that it is forecasting a sustained recovery in economic output, with employment growing year on year and unemployment falling year on year.

Karen Lumley: What would have happened in smaller, mixed-economy areas such as my constituency of Redditch if the Government had refused to take the challenge as they have and face up to the difficult decisions?

Justine Greening: Such areas would have faced a jobs tax with higher national insurance, higher corporation tax rates, lower economic confidence and, quite possibly, higher interest rates.

Child Benefit

Karl Turner: What representations he has received on the new arrangements for child benefit which will apply to one and two-parent families.

David Gauke: The Chancellor has received a number of representations on the planned changes to child benefit. It is not the Government's practice to provide details of all such representations.

Karl Turner: Does the Minister agree with my constituent Christopher Sumpton, who points out that it is grossly unfair for a single mother earning £44,000 a year and supporting three children to lose her child benefit, given that the next-door neighbours earning £80,000 will not? Will Treasury Benchers explain why the Government are attacking women in this savage way?

David Gauke: As I said earlier, we do not currently have the capability to examine the situation on a household basis, but we do need to make difficult decisions. If the Opposition want to oppose each and every cut, including in the child benefit that is given to some of the wealthiest in society, they can take that position, but we are prepared to take those tough decisions.

Andrea Leadsom: Does my hon. Friend think that the Opposition believe it would be fairer to tax the lower-paid and give the tax revenue to the higher-paid?

David Gauke: That appears to be their solution given that, as I understand it, they still advocate the increase in the national insurance contributions that we are going to counter by raising thresholds. If the Opposition wish to take that position, so be it.

Kerry McCarthy: I am afraid that the answers that the Minister is giving are simply not good enough. Can he explain the logic behind the child benefit proposal, if there is any? Why is the assessment not being made on household income rather than just on the highest earner's income? Will it apply to a cohabiting high earner or just to married couples, and why will there be a phenomenally high marginal deduction rate? Is it not true that this is just another "back of a fag packet" policy that the Government have not thought through at all?

Mr Speaker: There were four questions there, but one answer will do.

David Gauke: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment to her shadow ministerial position, but I point out what her former colleague Alan Milburn has said:
	"In times of plenty, giving child benefit to high earners is a luxury the country can afford; in times of want I don't think it is. We would be wrong to oppose it. I can't see it having an adverse impact on social mobility."
	I know Alan Milburn belongs to the centre ground, but the Opposition really should not abandon it.

Tax Take (East Midlands)

Andrew Bridgen: What recent estimate he has made of the proportion of the central Government tax take from residents of the east midlands which is spent on that region.

Danny Alexander: We cannot accurately disaggregate tax revenue by individual regions, but we publish regionally disaggregated public spending tables each year. Total identifiable expenditure in the east midlands was £35.4 billion in 2009-10.

Andrew Bridgen: I thank the Minister for that answer, but as he is well aware, Leicestershire is historically one of the lowest-funded parts of the UK for education, the police and the fire services. Can he assure me that that historically low funding settlement will be taken into account in the comprehensive spending review?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until the statement on 20 October to hear the details of our spending decisions, but as I have made clear in answer to earlier questions, of course we consider it important to understand and manage the regional impact of spending cuts. We have established a regional growth fund, the details of which will be in the spending review statement, which will enable areas such as his to win support for projects that help economic growth in difficult times.

Economic Growth

Harriett Baldwin: What assessment he has made of the effect on GDP of proposals to increase the level of economic growth in the June 2010 Budget.

Justine Greening: As we discussed earlier, the emergency Budget supported businesses in a variety of ways. We know that we have to rebalance our economy by getting an unwieldy public sector back into a sustainable, private sector-led economy that generates the tax revenues needed to fund our public services sustainably. We will never go back to the profligacy of the Labour party.

Harriett Baldwin: Businesses in West Worcestershire welcome the cuts in corporation tax that were announced in the June 2010 Budget. Does the Minister agree that the most basic economics primer would say that, if they are possible, lower tax rates for business can lead to higher tax revenues from business?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right, and I know that she had wide experience in business before entering the House. Opposition Front Benchers really ought to listen to the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and a range of other representatives from across industry who welcome the measures that the Government have brought forward to support business. As long as the Opposition put their head in the sand they will remain what they are right now, which is incredible.

Tax Collection

Katy Clark: How much tax revenue each enforcement and compliance officer in Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs collected on average in the last financial year.

David Gauke: HMRC's enforcement and compliance officers engage in a wide range of activities, from dealing with relatively low-value errors made by small businesses and individuals to addressing significant risks among the largest corporate bodies, as well as countering criminal attacks on the tax and duty system. For that reason, HMRC does not collect statistics on the average revenue collected by an enforcement or compliance officer. Results of HMRC's compliance activity were published in its 2009 autumn performance report.

Katy Clark: Given that we have already lost more than 9,000 enforcement and compliance officers, and I am told that each officer raises more than £600,000 after their salary, does the Exchequer Secretary not think that he should get those statistics and start recruiting people rather than sacking them?

David Gauke: As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary made an announcement a couple of weeks or so ago of about £900 million-worth of investment in HMRC over the spending review period. It is important to tackle compliance, and the Government, perhaps more than our predecessors, will be determined to do that.

Economic Growth

Bob Stewart: What assessment he has made of the effect on GDP of proposals to increase the level of economic growth in the June 2010 Budget.

Justine Greening: The Government are continuing to do whatever they can to support business. As I said in answer to previous questions, Richard Lambert from the Confederation of British Industry described our emergency Budget as a
	"first important step on the long journey back to economic health."
	It is a step that the Labour party unfortunately does not want to take with us.

Bob Stewart: How do we ensure that everyone benefits from economic growth, particularly pensioners? With interest rates so low, many pensioners in Beckenham are rapidly eating into their life savings.

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Although the emergency Budget was very much about supporting business and creating again the conditions for employment, he is right to raise pensions. That is why another key part of it, which perhaps got less attention than it otherwise would, was our managing to re-establish the earnings link with the state pension. The Labour party failed to do that in 13 years-it promised but, as ever, failed to deliver.

Topical Questions

Julian Smith: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

George Osborne: The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure economic stability, promote growth and employment, reform the banking system and restore some sanity to the public finances.

Julian Smith: What message does my right hon. Friend think the national insurance holiday and the abolition of Labour's jobs tax sends to those thinking of setting up their own firm in God's own county?

George Osborne: It will be my great good fortune to visit Yorkshire later this week to hand out the  Yorkshire Post awards in Leeds. My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have introduced a regional tax cut for the first time in British history, which means that businesses that are set up outside the south-east of England will benefit from a national insurance holiday on the first few employees that they bring on board. We have also got rid of Labour's job-destroying jobs tax, which, as we now read in the memoirs of various senior members of the Labour Government, they tried to dissuade the previous Prime Minister from introducing.

John Mann: As confirmed by the OBR and Treasury officials to the Treasury Committee, the Budget is predicated on having in this Parliament an extra 700,000 EU migrants net living in this country. Where will they live and work? How will they be spread across the United Kingdom?

George Osborne: The Office for Budget Responsibility is using the statistics from the Office for National Statistics. Of course, one of the decisions that the previous Government made was to allow countries to join the European Union without any transitional controls whatsoever on their citizens' movement to the United Kingdom. We are living with the consequence of that decision.

Karen Bradley: Many small businesses in Staffordshire Moorlands tell me that they have enough to deal with without the intricacies and complications of the tax system. Will the Minister provide more information to the House about how the work of the Office of Tax Simplification will help those small businesses?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is right to raise the concerns of business. We have a complicated tax system and the longest tax code in the world. The Office of Tax Simplification will make a very useful contribution to assisting the Government to identify unnecessary complexity and finding areas of reform.

Luciana Berger: Many pensioners in my constituency are concerned about the indexation of pensions changing from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. A pensioner who currently receives a pension of £10,000 will be more than £800 worse off by 2016. Does the Minister think that it is fair for pensioners to be hit in that way?

George Osborne: The Government have introduced a triple lock on the basic state pension, which means that it rises by earnings, or by CPI or RPI-whichever is higher. The previous Government had 13 years to do that, and they did not.

Andrew Bridgen: In my constituency, more than 7,000 jobs are directly linked to east midlands airport. I believe that it has been shown that there would be no environmental or fiscal gain from the introduction of a per plane tax, as flights would simply divert to other European hubs. Is the Economic Secretary willing to reconsider any plans for a per plane tax, and will she meet me as a matter of urgency to discuss that?

Justine Greening: I will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. The coalition agreement mentions the desire to reform air passenger duty and move towards a per plane duty. In the intervening period, I have had a range of meetings, including with airport owners, and I would be happy to add him to my list of people with whom I have discussed that policy.

Toby Perkins: The Chancellor was a millionaire the day he was born, so he has not got a clue what it is like to try to raise a family on £40,000 a year- [ Interruption. ] Do you mind? He cannot hear me. People who earn that much are not the super-rich; they are hard-working people who are getting by and getting on. The cuts to child benefit will take about 10% of the income of some of them. By what definition of fairness does he think robbing 10% from hard-working people is a fair deal for such families?

George Osborne: I will make one observation if the hon. Gentleman wants to lay into my background: I went to the same school as the deputy leader of the Labour party.
	On child benefit, we have had to take some difficult decisions. It is quite extraordinary that the Labour party finds itself opposing our decision. Yes, it was a tough decision, but it was fair in the context of the decisions that we must take. The fact that Alan Milburn today warned Labour Members not to oppose the measure- [ Interruption. ] Of course, the sensible part of the Labour party is no longer on the Front Bench. The fact that Alan Milburn, whom Labour appointed as its social mobility tsar, is warning them is something to which Labour Members should pay attention.

Mike Freer: Although my constituents accept the need to tackle Labour's legacy, many of them have large families and are concerned about the changes in child benefit. Will the Minister consider transitional arrangements to help families to adjust?

David Gauke: We do have to take tough decisions. The full implementation proposals will be announced next week, but this is one of those occasions when we must make tough decisions, because we must face up to the enormous deficit. The Government are prepared to deal with it.

Paul Blomfield: Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury welcome the backing given by Olympic champion Jessica Ennis to the U-mix centre, which is a sports and leisure facility in Sheffield designed by Urban Mixtures, an inspiring group of young people who represent the real big society at work? Funding has been allocated for the project under the myplace programme, but has been frozen pending the comprehensive spending review. Will he share my hope that that funding will be unfrozen and allocated shortly?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, and as usual he puts the case for his constituency very eloquently. Decisions on spending matters, including spending that was frozen under the project re-approvals process, will be announced on or after the date of the spending review.

Mark Menzies: In the Budget statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned the need to rebalance the economy towards export-led growth, which is particularly important for constituencies such as mine in the north-west. Will he update the House on the Government's progress in that respect?

George Osborne: I have seen at BAe Warton in my hon. Friend's constituency a very good example of high-skilled manufacturing. Everything the Government do is designed to support a private sector recovery and to rebalance our economy, so that not all the growth that takes place does so in only one corner of the country.

Barry Gardiner: After the row at the International Monetary Fund summit at the weekend, has the Chancellor concluded that the renminbi is undervalued, or that the US is under-focused on consumption-led domestic growth?

George Osborne: I have concluded that it is very sensible for the serving Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day not to comment on the value of currencies.

Tom Brake: When the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary consider how to address the huge budget deficit they inherited from Labour, will they not lose sight of the importance of investing in affordable housing, specifically to ensure that homes meet the decent homes standard?

Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We will make decisions on spending and announce them on 20 October in the spending review statement. The point he makes is important, and I very much take it to heart.

William McCrea: During a visit by the Deputy Prime Minister to Northern Ireland last week, he stated, "I will go away with colleagues in the coalition Government to look at the possible impact of the deficit reduction plan on capital expenditure in Northern Ireland." Can the Chancellor confirm that that has been done and what steps will be taken in response?

George Osborne: As the hon. Gentleman may know, I have met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and I am looking at the points that they raised with me. If he will forgive me, I will make an announcement on 20 October.

Penny Mordaunt: Does the Minister think that we will stand a greater chance of having fairer taxation now that Finance Bills are published and properly consulted on, and will that stop appallingly unfair policies such as the abolition of the 10p tax rate ever being introduced again?

David Gauke: We set out in June our plans for making tax policy and ensuring greater consultation, so that there is a clearer process when we develop policies. That has been widely welcomed by business and the tax professions, and we hope to build on the progress that we have made so far.

Michael Connarty: With all this talk of fairness, why is it that no one has mentioned VAT? A 14.5% increase in real terms in the VAT rate has been attacked by what I thought were Conservative-voting business people and families in my constituency, and will punish those at the lower end of the income spectrum. Why is such a high rate of VAT being pursued by this Government?

George Osborne: We are having to take decisions to close the highest budget deficit in the G20. I listened to what the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer said recently on "The Andrew Marr Show". He was asked:
	"we now read from Peter Mandelson's book that you were quite keen on the idea of VAT going up".
	Alistair Darling replied:
	"Well yeah, obviously...It would have allowed you to have done you know a lot more to take down the deficit...and would have...ameliorated some of the worst effects of reductions".
	For once, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer had the right idea- [ Interruption. ] That is because he was overruled by the then Prime Minister.

Robert Halfon: May I bring to the Minister's attention the case of my constituent, Mr Peter Gorse? Mr Gorse ran a healthy small business until the Royal Bank of Scotland forced him into bankruptcy so that it could repossess his assets. Will the Minister agree to meet me and my constituent so that his case can be heard fairly by that taxpayer-owned bank and to ensure that cases such as his are fairly considered as we reform the banking system?

Mark Hoban: The responsibility for operational matters at RBS rests with its board. The Treasury's engagement with RBS is through United Kingdom Financial Investments Ltd, which acts as a shareholder. My hon. Friend will be aware that in July we published a Green Paper setting out some approaches to improving the access that small and other businesses have to finance, and we will make further announcements on that shortly.

Albert Owen: What representations have Treasury Ministers had from advice organisations such as citizens advice bureaux which fear that their budgets from local government will be cut at a time when they will be advising the most vulnerable people on their finances and welfare benefits? Will the Treasury team join me in paying tribute to the citizens advice bureaux for the work that they do, and commit to giving them extra funding for that purpose?

Danny Alexander: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the work of the citizens advice bureaux. In constituencies across the country they play an invaluable role in advising people and helping them through difficult times. We will make spending announcements on 20 October, but I have had conversations with the citizens advice bureaux about some of the issues affecting them. Those issues will also affect other organisations in the community and voluntary sector, and the Government take that very seriously.

Jesse Norman: Does the Chancellor share my view that an economic policy that does not engage with cutting the deficit at all, and which has £30 billion of additional spending requirements, is no economic policy?

George Osborne: I agree with my hon. Friend. As we are just a couple of minutes from the statement on higher education, it would be interesting to hear from the Opposition about whether they really will pursue this graduate tax, which the shadow Chancellor has passionately opposed, including in the open letter he wrote to his party leader just a couple of weeks ago.

Emma Reynolds: The Government failed to conduct an equality impact assessment on the June 2010 Budget. Can the Chief Secretary reassure me that they will not make the same mistake again, and will the Government ensure that they assess the-probably disproportionate-impact on women of the comprehensive spending review?

Danny Alexander: The answer is yes. Departments will be carrying out these assessments on their spending decisions, and I, myself, held a round-table meeting in the Treasury with a number of different organisations involved in the equalities area to ensure that we were considering all the relevant issues in the run-up to publishing the spending review.

Mr Speaker: Order. There is quite a lot of chuntering from sedentary positions, but I want to hear both the questions and the answers.

Matthew Hancock: Since the formation of a Government who are determined to deal with the deficit, market interest rates have in some cases halved. What impact does the Chancellor think that has had on both our GDP growth and the interest payments that we have to make on Government debt?

George Osborne: First, the fall has helped to reduce interest payments, and secondly it has helped many companies during the recovery. It is striking how our market interest rates have fallen since taking the steps that we announced in the Budget. That is not the case in some other countries in Europe that had similar market interest rates to us at the time of the general election.

Rachel Reeves: Does the Chancellor agree that market interest rates were falling before the election? The fall is not due to the Government's policies-they were falling before.

George Osborne: I advise the hon. Lady to look at the market interest rates of Spain and the United Kingdom, which were the same at the time of the general election. In Spain, they have hardly fallen at all, but they are 1% lower in the United Kingdom. That is a real boost to businesses.

Julian Huppert: Is the Chancellor aware that the Treasury is the only large Department that does not have a chief scientific adviser? Does that say anything about its interest in and understanding of science, and will he appoint a chief scientific adviser?

George Osborne: I assure my hon. Friend that I have received plenty of advice-public and private-from the nation's scientists.

Higher Education and Student Finance

Vincent Cable: rose-

Mr Speaker: Order. There is a great deal of interest in the Secretary of State's statement, and I appeal to Members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, because I want to hear the Secretary of State- [Interruption.] I am always grateful to you, Mr Pound, for your attempted assistance.

Vincent Cable: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the future funding of higher education and student finance, in the light of the report published today by Lord Browne's independent inquiry.
	Lord Browne was asked to undertake his review in November last year. The review was set up by the Labour Government on a cross-party basis, and that is how we wish to proceed. I and the Minister for Universities and Science, the right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), thank Lord Browne and his review panel. The Government endorse the main thrust of the report, but we are open to suggestions from inside and outside the House over the next few weeks before making specific recommendations to Parliament, with a view to implementing the changes for students entering higher education in autumn 2012. More detail will be contained in next week's spending review on the funding implications, but as a strategic direction the Government believe that the report is on the right lines.
	Browne acknowledges that
	"the current funding and finance systems for higher education are unsustainable and need urgent reform".
	The issue is how, and it has to be framed in terms of how the higher education sector contributes to the deficit reduction programme. There is also, I think, consensus that there should be no up-front tuition fees for students, which would seriously deter students from low and middle-income families, and this Government strongly oppose up-front tuition fees. Indeed, we share Lord Browne's conclusion that we should extend exemption from up-front tuition fees to part-time students-currently 40% of the student population-who have been unfairly discriminated against hitherto.
	The question, then, is how much the graduate contributions for tuition should be. We are considering a level of £7,000. Many universities and colleges may well decide to charge less, because there is clearly scope for greater efficiency and innovation in how universities operate-two-year ordinary degrees are one approach. Exceptionally, Lord Browne suggests that there should be circumstances under which universities can price their courses above this point, but he suggests that this would be conditional on demonstrating that funds would be invested in securing a good social mix with fair access for students from less-privileged backgrounds, and in raising the quality of teaching and learning. We will consider this proposal carefully.
	We believe it essential that if the graduate contribution is to rise, it should be linked to graduates' ability to pay. On average, graduates earn comfortably more than £100,000 over their lifetimes compared with non-graduates, but not all graduates benefit in this way. Some choose socially useful but modestly paid or unpaid work, which may include time spent bringing up a family. At present, the graduate contribution acts too much like a poll tax, and is not fair.
	I therefore asked Lord Browne specifically to look at progressive solutions to the problem, and he has come up with persuasive proposals to deal with it. He suggests a £21,000 graduate income threshold before any payment is made-as against £15,000 at present-and that it be linked to average earnings. He also suggests that a real rate of interest should be paid, but only over that threshold. The effect is striking: 30% of graduates would pay less from their lifetime earnings than they do under the existing system. The top third of graduate earners would pay more than twice as much as the lowest third. That is fair and progressive. The Government broadly endorse that approach, and we will examine the details of implementation. The principle of needs-blind admission to universities must remain central.
	The cost of university education to individuals and the state reflects living costs as well as tuition costs. The Browne report makes some constructive suggestions. We will make detailed proposals that will not only make it attractive for students from families of modest means to go to university, but be fair and affordable, including by exempting the poorest students from graduate contributions for some or all of their studies.
	Lord Browne considers alternatives, including a graduate tax, which I believe the new leader of the Labour party favours.  [ Interruption. ] I have consistently argued for a progressive contribution, which we are now delivering. Some key features of a progressive graduate contribution would incorporate the best features of a graduate tax. It would be collected through the pay packet at a rate of 9p in the pound above the £21,000 threshold and, combined with a real interest rate, as Browne recommends, it would be progressive and related to ability to pay. However, Browne identifies serious problems with what he calls a "pure" graduate tax. He concludes that the proposal is simply unworkable.
	If there are any lingering doubts among those on the Opposition Benches, I strongly recommend that they read the open letter from the new shadow Chancellor to the new Labour leader three weeks ago, which reads:
	"Oh, and for goodness' sake, don't pursue a graduate tax. We should be proud of our brave and correct decision to introduce tuition fees. Students don't pay them, graduates do, when they're earning more than £15,000 a year, at very low rates, stopped from their pay just like"- [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State, but I want to hear every word of his statement, and every Member should want to do the same.

Vincent Cable: I do believe, moreover, that we need to look beyond the graduate population. Some 55% of young people do not go to university. We must not perpetuate the idea, encouraged by the pursuit of a misguided 50% participation target, that the only valued option for an 18-year-old is a three-year academic course at university. Vocational training, including apprenticeships, can be just as valuable as a degree, if not more so.
	Finally, there is a challenge to us all to promote a long-term sustainable future for higher education. This has been a difficult issue for all parties in the House. Those on the Opposition Benches have ranged between early advocates of a graduate contribution, such as the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and the new shadow Chancellor, through to those implacably opposed to change and to the current Labour leadership, who have apparently embraced a graduate tax. The Conservatives initially campaigned against graduate contributions, but reversed their position. My own party consistently opposed graduate contributions, but in the current economic climate we accept that the policy is simply no longer feasible. That is why I intend, on behalf of the coalition, to put specific proposals to the House to implement radical and progressive reforms of higher education along the lines of the Browne report.

John Denham: May I thank the Business Secretary for his statement and for giving me advance notice of it? Is it not the truth that the coalition has decided to put the responsibility for reducing the deficit on to the personal bank accounts of this country's most ambitious and able young people, saddling them with debts that many will never pay off, when the Government should be opening doors for them to make the most of their ability?
	Labour Members believe that higher education is important not just for individual graduates but for growth, prosperity, job creation and our ability to succeed in a competitive world. That is why, a few years ago, we took the tough decision to introduce fees, and it is why we invited Lord Browne to undertake his inquiry. We should thank him for his work. I welcome the raising of the threshold, the equitable treatment of part-time students and the emphasis on better guidance in schools and improved information on quality. Those were issues on which we asked Lord Browne to advise, to build on work that we had already begun. The £350 increase in the maintenance grant will of course be offset by the abolition of the £329 bursary for poorest students. In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, will the Business Secretary promise today to make available to the House and the wider public the economic models used by Lord Browne?
	It is clear that Lord Browne's report has been crucially shaped by the assumptions that he has had to make about coalition policy. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Lord Browne's report assumes that the teaching grant for higher education will be cut by 80%? That would effectively end the public funding of most courses, and place the responsibility for paying for higher education on to students alone. Will he also confirm that some universities could lose more than 90% of their public funding? Is not the row within the coalition conveniently obscuring the biggest cuts to a publicly funded university system that we have ever seen? Tough decisions have to be made to cut the deficit, but even in its plans for reckless, deep and rapid cuts the coalition is planning cuts of only 25%, so why is it singling out higher education for such a massive and disproportionate cut? Our competitors around the world are investing in higher education because universities are a key driver of growth and new jobs. Why is the coalition turning its back on growth?
	The Business Secretary says that some universities might charge less than £7,000. Does he accept that an average fee of £6,000 would cut university funding by £300 million? He says that he is considering a £7,000 basic fee. On 28 April this year, the leader of the Liberal Democrats-now the Deputy Prime Minister-said:
	"If fees rise to £7,000 a year...within five years some students will be leaving university up to £44,000 in debt. That would be a disaster. If we have learnt one thing from the economic crisis, it is that you can't build a future on debt."
	So what exactly is the difference- [ Interruption. ] That was the Deputy Prime Minister's conclusion. What exactly is the difference between the £7,000 a year fees that he believed would be a disaster and the £7,000 a year fees that his Business Secretary now proposes? Promises were made by the Business Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister at the last election that should not be lightly thrown away. The trust of politicians is a matter not just for the Liberal Democrats but of the integrity of this House as a whole.
	Is it not true that Lord Browne's report makes proposals that would leave many graduates paying off their debts when their own children start university? Is it not true that, while the average graduate today pays off their loan in 11 years, under these proposals the majority of students would not throw off the burden of debt for 30 years? Is it not true that the middle-income graduates-the teachers, police officers, engineers and middle managers, who are often the same people losing their child benefit-will pay more than their fair share? They will pay longer and pay more interest than the higher earners, who can pay off their loans more quickly. Is it not true that women will be in debt longer than men and pay more interest on their loans?
	Will the Business Secretary be more explicit? Does he support the ending of the fee cap? A student taking a course costing £12,000 per annum will leave with a total debt, including maintenance, of £47,250, compared with the £32,000 debt that the Business Secretary says is the basic one. Can we not all recognise that, in the real world, too many able students will turn their backs on the university and the course best suited to them and be forced to shop around for the cheapest option? Will the Secretary of State accept that the Browne proposals on access to the most selective universities lack any teeth or any strength?
	The Secretary of State once advocated a graduate tax because he believed that it could produce a manifestly fair and progressive system, with those who can most afford it making the greater contribution. Now, he has been told that he does not support a graduate tax. Given the promises he and his colleagues made at the election, does he not agree that we all have the right to demand that any proposals meet the same tests of fairness that he used to support?

Vincent Cable: May I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post? He was a much respected Minister in the previous Parliament and was regarded as a man of considerable integrity, mainly because of his resigning from the Blair Government over the Iraq war. Whatever our differences, he will be respected for that decision.
	I should be interested to find any quotation marks indicating that I have ever advocated a pure graduate tax. In the South Bank university speech, I advocated a progressive graduate contribution. That is what this statement is all about.
	The thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's comments related to deficit reduction-a problem on an enormous scale that we inherited from him and his colleagues. May I remind him that according to the analysis conducted by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, my Department-the one that he shadows-was, under a Labour Government, confronting cuts of 20% to 25%. About 70% of that budget is for higher education. He and his colleagues have already said that they do not accept the cuts in regional development agencies and they do not accept cuts in science. They were therefore planning to make massive cuts in the university teaching budget. It is just sheer hypocrisy to stand up here and tell us- [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State. I know that feelings are running high on this subject- [Interruption.] Order. The more noise there is, however, the slower progress will be. Very large numbers of Members wish to participate. I want to help the House, but the House has to be prepared to help itself.

Vincent Cable: I repeat that Labour Members, who landed the country in this enormous deficit problem, have to begin to spell out what it is that they would cut. It would include universities; let us be under absolutely no doubt about that.
	The right hon. Gentleman had the extraordinary nerve to talk about building a future on debt. I and many Members will recall my warning the former Prime Minister five, six or seven years ago about the dangerous escalation of private debt in this country, which has led to British households having more debt in relation to their income than those in any other country in the world. This is what we inherited. He and his colleagues introduced a system of tuition fee funding that is built on debt. They introduced a system of repayment over 25 years; we are extending that, potentially, to 30 years. What is the fundamental objection in terms of personal debt? The right hon. Gentleman has given no convincing explanation of what alternative he is recommending.
	I think we need to get to the bottom of this. The right hon. Gentleman did get around to talking abut the graduate tax. Is that now the policy of the Labour Opposition, or is it not? We know that the shadow Chancellor is opposed to it, and that his leader is in favour of it. The right hon. Gentleman is sitting uncomfortably in the middle. What is his position?
	The right hon. Gentleman says that the policy recommended by the Browne report, which we have endorsed in outline, is hard on middle earners. Let us confront that proposition. We inherited a system that effectively amounted to a poll tax. That was the way in which the student tuition fee system operated. We required Browne to produce proposals for a progressive formulation. Such a progressive contribution would not have come about if this Government had not intervened and asked Browne to produce proposals. That is the commitment that we have made to middle earners, many of whom will not have to pay the full rate of tax.
	Let me read the right hon. Gentleman a comment made by the independent Institute of Fiscal Studies. Opposition Members frequently quote its views, as they did in the aftermath of the Budget earlier this year. The IFS said that
	"those in the bottom 30% of lifetime earnings would actually pay back less than under the current system"
	-that is, the system that the right hon. Gentleman operated. Only the highest-earning 30% of graduates would pay back the full amount of their loans. That is the progressive system with which we are identified, and with which the previous Government had no intention of proceeding.
	Finally, let me confront the pledge, the promise, that my colleagues and I- [Interruption.] Yes, I am confronting that issue: the issue of the pledge that my colleagues and I undertook to implement. In the current circumstances, we cannot implement it. I fully accept- [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State must be heard. Members have challenged him. He is dealing with the point according to his own lights, and the House must hear him.

Vincent Cable: As I was saying, I fully accept that, but let me explain. I believe that Members in all parts of the House will share this experience. Like many of them, I was the first person in my family to stay at school beyond the age of 15. I went to university free of charge, with no fees or maintenance costs to pay. They were paid for me by the state.
	Like many Members, I wanted to ensure that my children's and my grandchildren's generations enjoyed that free system of university education. In an ideal world, that is what we would do, but we are not in an ideal world. We are in a world in which we have inherited a massive financial mess. We have come to terms with reality, and it is time that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends did the same.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. First, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that questions must be about the policy of the Government: what it is, or what it should be. Secondly, in view of the very large number of Members seeking to catch my eye, I underline the importance of each Member's asking a single short supplementary question-and, of course, I remind the Secretary of State of the merits of pithy replies.

David Evennett: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and commend the Browne report, which is a really constructive piece of work.
	We need world-class teaching in our universities and we need world-class research in our universities, so reform must come, and we accept what the Secretary of State has said. Does he agree that the quality of student experience of teaching, tutorials and careers advice needs to be improved, and that we also need more innovative part-time courses?

Vincent Cable: I very much agree; indeed, one of the incentives provided by this new system will be encouraging part-time courses, and therefore part-time learners, who have been discriminated against in the past. It will also bring pressure to bear on universities to improve their teaching performance, which is highly variable. In the university system, promotion tends to be earned through research rather than teaching quality. Universities will now have to attract students, so they will have to provide quality teaching throughout the system. That is one of the big advantages of the reforms we are undertaking.

Jack Straw: The leader of the Liberal Democrats said on 28 April that increasing student fees to £7,000 would be "a disaster". If it was a disaster on 28 April why is it not a disaster now?

Vincent Cable: I have already explained the necessity, for economic reasons, of pressing ahead with these reforms. They have great advantages in themselves, but they also help us to address the massive deficit left by the previous Government, in which the right hon. Gentleman served throughout.

Nicholas Boles: It was a great hero, I believe, of the right hon. Gentleman who said:
	"When the facts change, I change my mind."
	When the facts change, does not the new Leader of the Opposition bury his head in the sand?

Mr Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having to deal with this matter in this way, but questions must be about the policy of the Government and, unfortunately, that one was not.

Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if higher fees to attend the best universities deter poor students from going to them, the most able students will not go to the best universities and Britain will be the poorer for it?

Vincent Cable: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. There is a real issue here, and it relates to the Browne review's proposals for variable fees, which I made very clear we are still considering. Let me set out the argument. On the one hand we have world-class universities-four of the 10 leading universities in the world are in this country and we want to keep it that way-and they are making a very strong case for variable fees. On the other hand, however, if that were to be accepted large numbers of people from modest backgrounds would be deterred by highly priced courses at universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, and we see the psychological impact of that-it is very real. We need to weigh up those two factors. That is why, although I have come to the House with the firm proposal of our support for the £7,000 limit, we want to consider further how we might balance those two issues in relation to variability of fees.

Julian Brazier: In welcoming the broad thrust of this report, may I say to my right hon. Friend that his two priorities for such public money as is available should be the protection of excellence and of the position of less well-off people who want to do courses?

Vincent Cable: Indeed. Those two considerations are at the heart of the Browne report, and that is one of the reasons we have gone along with the thrust of its recommendations. There are proposals that we still have to make-and which, of course, will depend on the spending review-in relation to the maintenance package of grants and loans, which will, of course, affect the least-advantaged people in society. I cannot give details on that today, but that central point is clearly uppermost in our policy.

Adrian Bailey: Conspicuously absent from the Secretary of State's statement was any projection of the amount of increased funding for universities that would accrue from these measures. Are they designed to provide extra funding for the universities, which we need for an advanced industrial economy, or are they designed just to finance cuts in public expenditure?

Vincent Cable: I am not going to announce a week ahead of the spending review the details of what it will entail, which is why I could not answer the specific questions the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) asked about percentages. Of course, as a result of the very difficult cuts we are going to have to make, there will be a replacement of Government funding for teaching with graduate contributions. That is very clear, and it was at the heart of the Browne report as well as of Government policy, but the upshot will be that there will be adequate funding for universities as a whole so that they are in a position to maintain their current standards of excellence. As the hon. Gentleman implies, they are world class and we must keep them that way.

Simon Hughes: As my right hon. Friend listens to the responses to the Browne report and develops the Government's final proposals in the weeks ahead, can he tell me how he will ensure that our Government do not do anything to discourage young people from estates such as the Tabard Gardens or the Four Squares in my constituency, and millions of others, from going to university because of the risk of having significant debt at the beginning of their working lives?

Vincent Cable: Yes, indeed. We certainly need to be very conscious of the position of people at the bottom end of the social scale, which is why I emphasise the importance of a social mix in universities, and of course of middle earners too; this is not simply a question of the most deprived communities. Two issues affect the people about whom my hon. Friend is concerned. The first is the poverty of their own families, which is why we need to have generous support, through grant and loan provision, for maintenance. The other is the psychological impact of people being deterred by extremely high fees, which potentially some universities would charge if they were allowed unlimited permission to do so. That is why we are hesitating before accepting that recommendation and are considering carefully the very strict conditionality that would have to be attached to any movement on that score.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Secretary of State agree that our higher education sector is one of the most successful in the world and is probably our single most successful sector, and that that is so not because of the top four or top six universities, but because of the 100-plus universities that provide a fantastic service? We had this blood on the floor when we introduced top-up fees all those years ago, but after we did it we could see that the money we raised flowed into university salaries and into research. Will he guarantee me not only that this money will flow into our universities, but that he will not cut drastically the universities' budgets in a week's time?

Vincent Cable: I can certainly guarantee the hon. Gentleman that these sets of proposals will be welcomed by the university sector; if he reads the response of Universities UK, he will find that it welcomes them.

Robin Walker: I welcome the report's recommendations to extend support to more part-time students and to raise the threshold to £21,000, both of which would benefit students at the university of Worcester, which I represent. However, may I urge the Secretary of State to ensure, in implementing this report, that such universities, which have a strong record of securing long-term employment for their students after graduation, are encouraged to continue to focus on employability?

Vincent Cable: Yes, there is a major problem of employability, as unfortunately we have a growing pool of graduate unemployed. At the same time, there is a chronic shortage in some subjects, notably science, technology, engineering and maths-STEM subjects-which suggests that the existing system is not giving the right signals to universities. What we certainly want to see is much greater attention being given to universities' demonstrating their record on employability, performance and teaching, so that students can make informed choices in future.

Mark Durkan: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that although the Browne report's proposals address higher education institutions in England, they will have implications for such institutions in Northern Ireland? They will certainly have implications, by way of variable fees, for students who would wish to come to courses here. Will he discuss those implications with relevant Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive and in Scotland, or does he hope by default to impose the policy changes that he has just undertaken on the devolved Administrations?

Vincent Cable: Of course we respect the separate position of the different nations of the UK, and I am very happy to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman.

Pete Wishart: What about Scotland?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman asks about Scotland. I was there last week discussing this with university authorities, who told me that the existing model in Scotland is not sustainable and that they may well have to move to a model similar to that in England and Wales. So I think that in Scotland, as elsewhere in the UK, these realities will have to be faced.

Rob Wilson: May I welcome Lord Browne's report, the Secretary of State's statement, and his recognition that a graduate tax would be ruinous for this country? Could the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that under his plans, no student will be penalised for early repayment of their loan?

Vincent Cable: It is certainly feasible under the existing system-and it will be in future-for people to pay their obligations early, but we need to be very clear that we cannot allow very affluent people to be able to buy their way out of their obligations under a fair graduate contribution system. Anybody who has tried to pay their mortgage back early will have discovered that there is something called a redemption fee to maintain the integrity of the system. We need to look at ways of ensuring that there is no mechanism that allows people to avoid making a fair contribution to universities.

David Lammy: Can the Secretary of State confirm that when we set up the Browne review, we asked Lord Browne to look at an employer contribution? The Secretary of State said nothing in his statement about the position of employers, despite the fact that they clearly benefit from higher education. Will he take this opportunity to correct that position?

Vincent Cable: We will certainly look at that suggestion, but I have not heard any detailed, practical proposals from the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else on the subject. A good many courses at university, particularly apprenticeships at university level-at skill level and full level-are funded by employers, and I am sure that we would want to see that extended.

Stephen Williams: I also thank Lord Browne for his report, and am thankful for the influence of the Secretary of State and Liberal Democrats in the coalition Government; it has made the report rather more progressive than the original commissioners might have envisaged when the remit was set. Much of the attention has been on collection arrangements once people graduate, but far more attention needs to be paid to young people much earlier in the graduate journey, when they are teenagers making their decisions in, say, the deprived parts of Sheffield or Bristol, or even in the south Wales valleys. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that much more attention is given to that stage, so that children from poorer backgrounds see that university is for them?

Vincent Cable: Yes, absolutely, and that message fits in with the broader direction of Government policy on education. The simple truth is that very large numbers of people are being failed by the school system at present. They have to find a second chance, for example in further education colleges. That direction of policy-particularly with the idea of the pupil premium, which will help people through the school system-is very much part of our thinking, and we intend to carry that philosophy into the university sector.

Andrew Miller: The Secretary of State emphasises the importance of STEM subjects. What with today's report, the propositions that are starting to emerge in relation to the comprehensive spending review, and the impact of changes to overseas student rules, does he not see that he is leading us headlong towards massive cuts in STEM provision? Which departments does he want to see closed, and which does he want to keep open?

Vincent Cable: I certainly do not want to see that outcome; we want to see the exact opposite. We want more investment in STEM subjects. The hon. Gentleman will know that a level of, say, £7,000 would not cover the full costs of many STEM courses, and the Government will continue to support them through the teaching grant.

Claire Perry: I was lucky enough to go from my outstanding comprehensive school to a world-leading university, and then took time out of the work force to raise my family-a decision that I have never regretted. Millions of women choose to do the same. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that there will be provision, when the proposal eventually comes to Bill stage, for women like me-and, indeed, men-who choose to take time out to raise their family and then return to the work force?

Vincent Cable: Yes, indeed, and that is a very important consideration. Of course we want women to have equality. The gender gap has got to be closed, and the issue of taking time out is an important part of that. Of course, during the period that women-or men, in certain circumstances-take out of the labour force to care for their families, the real interest rate would not accrue.

Heidi Alexander: Like the Secretary of State, I was the first person in my family to go to university. The key thing is that I am not sure that I would have gone if I faced the debt that is likely if the general thrust of Lord Browne's report is followed, as the Secretary of State said it would be. What reassurance can he give young people from backgrounds like mine that they will not be unfairly disadvantaged by the reluctance of his Government to invest properly in higher education?

Vincent Cable: The Government are going to invest in higher education. It will be properly funded as a result of this package. I make the point to the hon. Lady again-I made it in my statement-that the average university graduate earns cumulatively over a lifetime well over £100,000 more than someone who chooses not to go to university. That is a substantial graduate premium. We need to communicate to many people in disadvantaged communities that it is in their interests to pursue higher education. We will make sure through the careers service, a proper system of advice and the support that we give in maintenance that they have that opportunity.

Julian Lewis: Will it not be a sad day for academic meritocracy if and when able students from poor backgrounds are deterred from going to top universities because those universities are allowed to charge more than other universities in fees to students?

Vincent Cable: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is quite right, and for that reason he will recall my comments about the need to be careful about following through the request of the Russell group universities for unlimited fees. There are serious problems with that. Of course there are advantages in terms of world-class universities, but we need to be careful about going down that road, and we will reflect further on it.

Paul Farrelly: I strongly oppose variable tuition fees and a market in higher education, and so did the Liberal Democrats. May I tell the Secretary of State today that the Lib Dem website still has a six-point timetable for scrapping tuition fees, and it is in a section entitled "What we stand for". The coalition agreement already includes provision for Liberal Democrats to abstain on the issue and not opt out from what they stand for.
	May I ask the Secretary of State this question? Today he has nailed his colours to the mast on variable tuition fees and a market in higher education, but what is it to be for other Liberal Democrat Ministers? Is it to be their manifesto and a principled orange line in the sand or betrayal of their voters and a miserable white flag of surrender?

Vincent Cable: When the Government's economic policies have produced the successful outcome that we all expect, we can return to the question of how universities can be supported in a more generous way, but at the moment we face a massive financial crisis that we inherited from the Labour party and we therefore have to make choices that he and his colleagues ducked.

Jason McCartney: Young people in my constituency have some wonderful options on their doorstep. There is Huddersfield university and the expanding Kirklees college, and some local engineering companies are offering apprenticeships. With that in mind does the Secretary of State wish to revise the target of 50% of young people going to university, or is he sticking by it?

Vincent Cable: We do not believe in prescriptive targets. The 50% target was a serious mistake, not least because it sent the wrong signals to the further education sector that it was undervalued and that vocational qualifications did not have the same status as graduate degrees. We intend to change that approach fundamentally and look at post-16 and post-state education as a whole, giving vocational and academic education equal status.

Yasmin Qureshi: Does the Secretary of State agree that implementing Lord Browne's review will lead to the financial collapse of 30 wide participation universities such as Bolton in my constituency, which has a number of mature students attending it? Will he ensure that the interests of students such as those attending Bolton university and others are protected?

Vincent Cable: I think the hon. Lady's central point is that it is possible that some universities will be in financial difficulty. They already are under the existing system, and we are having to consider how universities in that position will be dealt with. The analogy is with the banking system. If banks collapse, the depositors are protected-in other words, the students are protected so that they can complete their education-but the management of failed institutions has to change. We are currently working through a failure regime to deal with institutions that find themselves in difficulties. The number that the hon. Lady mentions is almost certainly implausibly high, but there will be some.

Sarah Wollaston: Will the Secretary of State consider carefully how we can prevent students from being deterred from undertaking longer courses such as medicine and pharmacy-very able students in particular may be put off from those courses-perhaps by introducing a three-year cap on fees?

Vincent Cable: The answer to that question is similar to the one that I gave on the other STEM subjects. Medicine is a costly course, which is why continuing support is needed through the teaching grant from Government to keep graduate contributions at a moderate and reasonable level, and that is what we shall aim to do.

Kelvin Hopkins: I was one of 33 Labour Members who voted against the introduction of fees in 1998. I took that view then, and I have not changed it at all-I do not believe that it is unaffordable or unsustainable. May I suggest to the Secretary of State that the Government seriously attack the tax gap, as less than 10% of the tax gap would pay for fees or, indeed, a quarter of the amount of tax breaks for the rich on their savings?

Vincent Cable: I think that the hon. Gentleman will have to apply his considerable powers of persuasion to his Front-Bench team, because they have not yet caught up with his ideological journey.

Mary Macleod: Will my right hon. Friend consider a reduced graduate contribution for those subjects where we have a real need and where there is a skills gap such as maths, science and engineering?

Vincent Cable: I thank the hon. Lady for her question but, again, I have answered that in different ways. We accept that one of the fundamental problems at the moment is the imbalance in the graduate population. There is a severe shortage of engineers in particular, but in STEM subjects in general. Unfortunately, there is a growing pool of graduate unemployment in other areas, so we must support the STEM subjects, and we will continue to do so through the teaching grant.

Helen Goodman: The Secretary of State mentioned the advent of real interest rates, but he does not seem to understand that their introduction means that a maths teacher on a middle-income salary will ramp up a bigger debt than, for example, an economist in a multinational company. Is he trying to tell us that in reality injustice is the new fairness?

Vincent Cable: I know that the hon. Lady is highly economically literate, going back over her history, but I think that on this particular issue, she has not read the report or perhaps not followed it closely enough.
	The proposal for real interest rates applies only above the £21,000 threshold. Some numbers were published on the front page of  The Guardian this morning that probably gave rise to the conclusion that the hon. Lady has drawn. Those figures are wrong, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which was quoted, has disowned them. It is clear from the analysis that the structure is progressive, but not in the way that she described.

Tony Baldry: For many mature students, the most cost-effective way to pursue a university degree is to do so as close as possible to their own home. Will my right hon. Friend encourage universities to collaborate much more closely with the further education sector to use FE campuses to help them deliver higher education degrees?

Vincent Cable: That is a helpful intervention, and I completely agree. We certainly wish to see the university sector evolve in that direction more flexibly, providing more genuine choice, including two-year degrees, and portable qualifications between universities. The model that the hon. Gentleman described is very much the model of the future. I used to teach in a Scottish university where that was the norm, and that is a form of good practice that we could adopt here.

Naomi Long: A number of Members have referred to the most regressive part of the report on variable fees, although it promotes as a positive the proposal that universities should compete on price. Will the Secretary of State give us his reassurance that he will look at that again to ensure that students choose the course best matched to their intellect and ability, not their bank balance?

Vincent Cable: We already have variable fees as a result of the system that was brought in under the last Government. The difficult issue now is how far to allow variability, particularly for a small group of universities that want much larger fees, and, as I have already said, I am very conscious of the problems that that would present.

Stephen Metcalfe: To ensure that students do not end up with increased amounts of debt from which they then do not reap the rewards, what support does the Secretary of State intend to give pupils to ensure that they choose the right courses, and that when a course does not necessarily suit, a mechanism is in place to prevent them from being kept on it for the purpose of funding the university rather than their own education?

Vincent Cable: That is a good question about one of the imperfections of the system at the moment. Many young people go to universities completely unaware of the employment possibilities that arise from their university education, and one thing that we hope to ensure through the information systems that will develop is that people will know exactly the performance of the universities and departments that they intend to go to, and the employability that would result from that. I hope that that will avoid the kind of problems that my hon. Friend describes, which are currently very serious indeed.

Liz Kendall: Whatever the merits or demerits of the Browne review, will the Secretary of State admit that not just he or the Deputy Prime Minister but every single Liberal Democrat Member has broken a firm pledge that they made to the voters less than six months ago? Yes or no?

Vincent Cable: As I think I said earlier, the roads to Westminster are covered with the skid marks of different political parties changing direction on this issue, not least those on the Opposition Benches. I would say this at the present stage: the two parties in the coalition are now very much agreed on the way forward. When we look opposite, we see two fundamentally different approaches to higher education-the existing system favoured by the shadow Chancellor, and a new system of graduate taxes favoured by their leader.

Andrew Percy: We are all agreed on the need to ensure that the very best people go into our public services where perhaps salaries are somewhat lower. With those graduates now potentially facing largely inflated and increased debts, what assurances can we have that the very best graduates will be supported in going into our public services under these proposals?

Vincent Cable: Anybody going into relatively low-paid employment, whether in a vocational approach to public service or in other ways, will be protected both by the £21,000 threshold and the system of variable interest rates. Many, many people in low-paid occupations will not be required to pay off any accumulated debt. It will be written off at the end of the period as a result of the progressive element built into the proposals.

Anas Sarwar: As has been said, every single Lib Dem MP signed the pledge-and appeared in a photograph-to vote against any fees increase. The question is: what will they choose-power or principle?

Vincent Cable: The Opposition do themselves no favours simply drawing attention to the fact that they themselves are hopelessly divided on the issue and have no answer to the issue of how higher education would be funded.

Greg Mulholland: Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that coalition politics involved compromise, and he was absolutely right. However, will the Secretary of State accept that there has been compromise by many people who now accept that in the current economic climate it is no longer possible to abolish tuition fees at their current rate? Does he also accept that increasing fees to more than twice the level that they are at is a compromise that some people simply cannot and will not accept?

Vincent Cable: I know that the hon. Gentleman has strong feelings on the subject and we have debated it. The first part of his question posed the problem correctly. The idea of abolishing tuition fees or even freezing them at their present level is simply not feasible, and I think that he acknowledges that. We must work towards a level; I specified £7,000 on behalf of the Government, which we think is the only way in future in which universities can be properly funded to carry out the functions that he and all of us want to see them perform at world-class level.

Clive Efford: The only thing that has changed since the Secretary of State and his colleagues put their skid marks on the student declaration before the general election is the scale and speed of the cuts that the Liberal Democrats have signed up to and are supporting the Tory party in carrying out. Children from many middle-income families will be turned from going to university as a result of these changes. If the changes come about, will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that any future changes will come back to the Floor of the House, as they have to now, and that they will not be able to be slipped through by some future Secretary of State who wants to increase fees even further and deter even more students?

Vincent Cable: I think that the hon. Gentleman came to the House the same year that I did. Before we get any more righteous indignation from Labour Members, I should say to him that he may remember campaigning on a manifesto that promised to abolish top-up fees but did absolutely nothing of the kind when the Government were returned.

Elizabeth Truss: Will the Secretary of State examine the international evidence that shows that countries with higher fees and a decent loan system to support them have higher participation from the lowest-income quartile socio-economic group? I am thinking of the US, which has 50% participation from the lowest-income quartile, and Australia, which has 30%. That compares with 17% in this country under the previous Government.

Vincent Cable: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and she is right to emphasise the fact that the approach that we are recommending is evidence-based. Certainly she is right about the combination of graduate contributions, which are progressive, and proper support in the form of maintenance for students from deprived backgrounds. In that way, we get high quality and social mobility as well.

Kevin Brennan: In his remarks, the Secretary of State made reference to the pledge that he and some of his colleagues apparently signed. I have not seen it. Could he tell us what it says? Will he place a copy of it in the House of Commons Library, so that hon. Members can study it more carefully and perhaps give it a wider audience?

Vincent Cable: The sense of humour coming from Opposition Members is becoming a little bit tired even for those among their own ranks. If we want to play silly games, I am afraid that I will constantly have to go back to them and ask how, if they do not want a system of graduate contributions of the kind that we are recommending, they would fund the system, given the massive cuts that they would have to make if they were still in government clearing up the mess that they created.

Iain Stewart: I particularly welcome Lord Browne's proposals about part-time students. My constituency is home to the Open university and I am well aware that part-time students are currently at a disadvantage because they have to pay up-front fees and that the part-time sector was hit badly by the previous Government's decision on equivalent and lower qualifications. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to comments this morning from the vice-chancellor of the Open university. He urges the Government to seize this historic moment and, once and for all, level the playing field between full-time and part-time students.

Vincent Cable: My hon. Friend is quite right. More as a result of negligence than intention, the last Government did terrible damage to the Open university and Birkbeck. We are very conscious of that problem and of the need to encourage part-timers and treat them on the same basis as full-timers. He is right to point out that this morning there was a very positive endorsement of the Browne report and its approach from the heads of those two institutions.

Thomas Docherty: The House will know that the National Union of Students will be holding a demonstration on Wednesday 10 November. Will the Business Secretary have the courage to come with me, face student leaders and explain why he has betrayed the promise that he made just a few weeks ago?

Vincent Cable: I am in constant touch with the National Union of Students. We have a very good dialogue with its representatives. They have made suggestions, some of which are helpful and some of which involve very substantial reductions in the amount of student maintenance support, to keep fees down to a level that they would prefer. We are continuing the dialogue. We welcome it, and it is good natured. We disagree on this particular point.

Sam Gyimah: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the current system, in which students incur debt that they have to pay back when they finish, and do not have any advice or support in choosing the right courses or understanding their employability when they finish them, is significantly worse than what is being proposed today, which is more support and advice?

Vincent Cable: We have covered this point several times, but it is worth reinforcing. Simply introducing a higher level of contributions, albeit a fairer one, will not in itself produce good outcomes unless students are properly informed about the advantages and disadvantages of going to different institutions. That is a key parallel component of the policy that we are adopting.

Wayne David: Has the Secretary of State given any thought at all to the impact of these policies on Wales? I am thinking in particular of Barnett consequentials.

Vincent Cable: The Chancellor will announce his wider proposals on public spending, but as far as I know there is no intention to change the Barnett formula.

Stephen Mosley: In many university towns, students play an important role in the local economy. Will the Secretary of State outline his proposals for how to support student living costs?

Vincent Cable: As I have indicated, student living costs and the maintenance to pay for them will be subject to a series of separate announcements. Once the spending review is announced, we will know how much it is possible to provide in the form of grants and maintenance loans. It is worth pointing out the base that we start from, which is that the current system of support for maintenance is probably the most generous in the world. As the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) pointed out a few moments ago, it is quite possible that we could move to a more sensible system whereby many students study in their home town.

Tom Blenkinsop: Are these proposed funding arrangements based on the current number of students attending undergraduate courses or on the inevitably reduced number who will attend due to very high fees? If fewer students attend university, does the Secretary of State expect that there will be still fewer students paying even higher fees in future, with fewer universities existing to supply their courses?

Vincent Cable: That question rather disregards past experience. There was a great deal of pessimism about the consequences of the system that the previous Government introduced. In the first year, there was indeed a fall in applications, but applications subsequently continued to rise. On the basis of our own historical experience and the experiences of other countries, we have no reason to believe that that pattern will not be repeated.

Peter Bone: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his courageous statement. Is not one of the great advantages of the coalition Government that Members on the Government Benches can disagree and reach a better policy? Some coalition Members might vote the other way, but the Government will continue.

Vincent Cable: We can disagree, but I think that we actually agree to a remarkable extent. However, there is a coalition agreement, and under its terms my colleagues who feel that our policy does not meet their expectations can abstain.

Albert Owen: I made a pledge to students in my area that I would vote against an increase in tuition fees, and I will stick to that pledge. Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), has the Secretary of State assessed the implications for the devolved Administrations? The implication for Wales could involve a sum as great as £140 million. Has he also discussed the matter with relevant Ministers?

Vincent Cable: We have certainly discussed the matter with relevant Ministers, and we can produce a formal analysis of what the policy will mean for different parts of the UK. That is a perfectly legitimate matter to pursue.

Martin Horwood: I still support the eventual abolition of all domestic tuition fees, although that is possibly more than six years off now. However, will my right hon. Friend confirm clearly whether he intends less well-off students to pay less while at university than they did under the Labour Government, and less well-off graduates to pay a smaller proportion of their wages in tuition fee repayments?

Vincent Cable: That is factually correct and has been endorsed this morning by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. My statement was originally going to say that 20% of graduates would pay less than they do at the moment, but I was fortified by discovering from the IFS's commentary that the percentage is actually 30%. Almost one in three graduates will pay less than they do at the moment under the scheme that the Labour Government introduced.

Luciana Berger: Earlier, the Secretary of State used the term "hypocrisy". As my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) and for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) have highlighted, it is hypocrisy that he and every single one of his Lib Dem colleagues signed the National Union of Students election pledge just five months ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) has asked what was in that pledge, so it will be useful for us to remind ourselves. The pledge said:
	"I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament".
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that he and all his Lib Dem colleagues will break the personal promises that they made to their local constituencies?

Vincent Cable: I signed that pledge with my colleagues, and I have explained the reasons why I did so. It was a stand from a commitment to try to keep universities free, which is what I enjoyed. I have explained, however, that in the current financial situation, which is truly appalling and which we inherited, all commitments and pledges will have to be re-examined from first principles.

Paul Uppal: I commend the Secretary of State for making his statement. Does he agree that the contribution made by graduates is not only economic and that it relates to social capital? They provide positive role models in society and make a contribution back into the community. The way we will achieve that is through the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

Vincent Cable: I think, if I understand the question correctly, that the hon. Gentleman is making the point that there are high social as well as private returns from higher education. That is one of the reasons why the Government continue to support it.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. I am keen to accommodate some more colleagues, but brevity is now of the essence.

Barry Gardiner: At the beginning of his statement, the Secretary of State commended my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) for his integrity in resigning from the previous Administration. Given that the Secretary of State has now told the House that he will not honour his pledge, will he show similar integrity?

Vincent Cable: I was completely sincere, and I commend the decision that the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) took. I hope that he will maintain that tradition of integrity by explaining how the Labour Opposition intend to finance higher education.

Sajid Javid: Although the Browne report was commissioned by the previous Government, it rightly received cross-party support in recognising how difficult the subject is. Is the Secretary of State as saddened as I am that, following the Labour leadership election, that cross-party consensus seems to have broken down? It is not working in the national interest.

Vincent Cable: I genuinely hope, even at this late hour, that that consensus has not broken down. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen was ambiguous in his approach to graduate tax; he referred to it, but he did not commend it. It may be that that is part of a journey-a rather short one-back to some form of consensus on higher education. There have been occasions when the parties in this House contributed greatly to long-term economic thinking. On the pension age and the age of retirement, for example, we came together on very difficult decisions. It has been a struggle to get all three parties to face up to the realities of the costs of higher education, but I have not given up on the Opposition.

Sheila Gilmore: The Secretary of State has said that before May he did not consider that a huge increase in tuition fees was needed or desirable for the long-term funding of our universities and students. The only thing that appears to have changed in his thinking is his belief that the deficit has to be wiped out very quickly. Why are two or three whole generations of students being asked disproportionately to pay for that deficit? Is he not mixing up the long term, which is what the Browne report was supposed to be about, and the short-term issues relating to how we overcome the deficit?

Vincent Cable: I know that the hon. Lady did not mean this, but it is often believed that fees are paid by students as they study, but they are not. We are talking about a graduate contribution that extends for a considerable period and that will relate to the ability to pay. She seems to be minimising the substantial financial problem that the Government have inherited, which is severe. I hope that Opposition Members will become a little more serious about the country's financial problems.

Steve Brine: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his statement and Lord Browne on his work. As the Secretary of State works on his proposals on encouraging lower-income students who might never have thought that university was for them to go, will he consider the work of organisations such as Aimhigher, which is based at the university of Winchester? It has an excellent track record in getting such students through to higher education.

Vincent Cable: We definitely need to learn from that experience. Most of the things that we have discussed today are essentially about money, but getting into higher education is about not only money, but encouragement, support and mentoring. The scheme that my hon. Friend has mentioned is certainly one from which we can learn.

William McCrea: Is the Secretary of State telling the House that he did not understand that the United Kingdom was in dire financial straits when he signed the pledge five months ago?

Vincent Cable: Of course we realised that the financial position of the country was serious. We must now make very difficult choices on the back of that, which I am sure is understood as well in Northern Ireland as it is everywhere else in the UK. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's party, which shares in government in Northern Ireland, accepts that extremely difficult decisions on higher education need to be made there as elsewhere.

John Hemming: Like the Secretary of State, I signed the pledge, which, as I remember, calls for a fairer system. I therefore congratulate him on lobbying Lord Browne into producing a report that will lead to a fairer system-the system will be more progressive and part-time tuition fees will be scrapped. However, that does not mean that the system is fair enough. Will the Secretary of State put me in touch with his private office, so that we can look at the nuances of some of the modelling of the net present values?

Vincent Cable: My hon. Friend asks me to share the modelling with hon. Members. I am improvising, but I do not see any problem with that. There is probably an intellectual property issue, but in the public interest, we should of course share the analysis.

Julie Hilling: What will be the effect of the proposals on the funding of universities such as Bolton, which has widened participation by attracting poorer and part-time students, especially if they feel that they must charge less than the £7,000 that he suggests they may charge?

Vincent Cable: I do not know the full details of the financial position of the university of Bolton, but I would have thought that it could draw two sources of strength from our approach. First, our approach encourages part-time students by making university more financially attractive for them. Secondly, Bolton can choose to attract students by offering a lower graduate contribution, which it may well succeed in doing.

Tessa Munt: What steps are the Government taking to encourage the development of a greater endowment base for university funding, thus eventually reducing universities' reliance on taxpayers and students? If the Government are about to dispose of a large number of properties and fixed assets, should not the proceeds be used for long-term investment rather than as a one-off boost to Government funds?

Vincent Cable: I have not referred to endowments, but it is probably fair to mention that there is quite a substantial section on them in the Browne report, which I hope that hon. Members look at. The report says that endowments are a potential additional source of finance beyond graduates and the Government. As my hon. Friend will know, endowments are a major source of funding in the United States, and they need to be made attractive and encouraged in this country. Obviously, I cannot predict what the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do in his next Budget, but such encouragement relates in large part to tax treatment.

Gregg McClymont: The publication of the Browne report and the Government's response this afternoon marks the point of no return in the marketisation of higher education. May I ask the Secretary of State, who I am told was once a social democrat, whether he is happy with letting the market rip in higher education?

Vincent Cable: Markets are not being allowed to rip-if they were, I would not have mentioned a £7,000 level, we would have simply lifted all restrictions, and there would be no question, as Browne suggested in his report, of extensive conditionality. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about that problem, why did he participate in a Labour Government who introduced variability in fees?

Duncan Hames: Given the Government's determination to link graduate contributions with ability to pay, will my right hon. Friend ensure that those with the greatest ability to pay, who can afford to make payments early and therefore choose to avoid progressive interest rates, will still be required to make the greatest contribution?

Vincent Cable: Yes. One of the scandals under the existing system is that affluent people can take advantage of loans at subsidised rates and invest the money. That has happened on a substantial scale, but it will no longer be attractive to people on very high incomes.
	I urge Labour Members to have a careful look at the income analysis in the report. The explanation of how the interest rate relates to work is technical and complicated, but even with a system of early repayment-I am sorry to go into economics jargon-the net present value of high earners' contributions will remain higher than for any other income group.

Chris Bryant: The Secretary of State has said many worrying things, but in particular it worried me that he said that it would be better if a higher percentage of students went to universities or colleges in their home towns. If he really expects every young person in the Rhondda to aspire only to go to a university in Glamorgan, he will be letting down future generations. I want to ensure that there is no disincentive for rich or poor kids to go on the right course for them, whether in England, Wales or wherever.

Vincent Cable: Of course nobody wishes to stop people travelling to other communities in pursuit of the best course- [ Interruption. ] I was simply making the point that for many universities, especially those that absorb people from less privileged backgrounds, the students live locally in their home environment. That is the common practice in London, Glasgow and other big cities. It is not true for all, and we do not want a one-size-fits-all system. We merely want to have more flexibility and choice, and that is one of the models available.

Stella Creasy: Over the past 10 years, we have seen an 83% increase in the number of children from Walthamstow going on to higher education as a result of the previous Government's work on increasing participation. If we do not see a similar trend under the new Government and these proposals, will the Secretary of State commit to coming back to the House to justify the waste of potential that that represents to our country?

Vincent Cable: We certainly regard it as a reasonable challenge to ensure that the higher education system takes a larger proportion of people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and I have made that very clear. On most measures, social mobility declined under the previous Government.

Kerry McCarthy: Is it the Government's intention to accept the recommendation to restrict access to student finance on the basis of aptitude, and if so will the Secretary of State consider the view that UCAS points are not always the best indicator of future academic potential? What will he do to encourage young people who might show future potential, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds?

Vincent Cable: There are proposals in the Browne report on the reform of what is called the tariff system. We need to look at those carefully, as they are technically complex and may well have the unintended consequences that the hon. Lady has described. However, I am not making a recommendation on that point at the moment.

Gavin Shuker: The minimum tariff entry standards, which have just been mentioned, include a system for rationing provision based on academic ability. What is the assumption of the number of points that will be needed in the Secretary of State's current modelling of student finance?

Vincent Cable: Those issues are completely unconnected. As I have just said, the Browne report includes recommendations on the reform of the tariff system, which we need to examine carefully. Admission to university is already based substantially on UCAS points and, in that sense, it is highly meritocratic.

Paul Blomfield: In the Secretary of State's replies to several questions from my hon. Friends, he has acknowledged that if the cap on fees is lifted, we risk creating a situation in which families will have to sit down with their children and make a decision about the university of their choice on the basis not of their qualifications or ability to learn, but of their ability to incur huge levels of debt. If he acknowledges that, will he reject that free market now-or is that another Liberal Democrat principle that has been thrown out of the window?

Vincent Cable: Nobody is suggesting-I have never suggested this-a free market in this area. The same points were made several years ago when we debated the fee-based system introduced by the previous Government, who accepted that on the balance of argument-the case was made initially by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who was ahead of his time on this issue, and later by the new shadow Chancellor-the system had to move in that direction. It is a highly constrained market and not a free market environment at all.

Nicholas Dakin: As a college principal over the past few years, I was proud to witness the growth in aspiration and widening participation of students from all backgrounds in Scunthorpe. One analysis out today suggests that implementing the Browne proposals as they stand will result in 17,500 fewer students going on to university. Does the Secretary of State want fewer university students and fewer universities?

Vincent Cable: As I explained earlier, when the previous Government put in place a substantial increase, numbers initially fell before subsequently recovering. As I said in response to earlier questions, it is not the job of the Government to be prescriptive about numbers. I return to the point that I made at the outset: there is a danger of looking at universities in isolation. There are many further education options for people post-18, including apprenticeships and vocational training. We have to treat all those on their merits and give them equal status. The number of people going to university is not, in itself, a useful measure of anything.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the Secretary of State and colleagues for their co-operation.

Points of Order

Barbara Keeley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question of Government policy on elected mayors in 12 of our cities, including Birmingham, Coventry, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield, is an important matter for those cities. I know, Mr Speaker, that you want Government policy announcements to be made first to this House, rather than to the media. Is it in order, therefore, that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) has announced to the media the details of how the Government intend to put mayors in place in some of those cities? Should the Government not be making a statement on this matter to the House?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. I did not have previous notice of it, although I make no complaint about that-she is entirely within her rights. The safest thing for me to say is that I will look into the matter and revert to her and, if necessary, the House when I have completed my inquiries.

Owen Smith: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I draw your attention to a very disappointing letter that Welsh Members received this week from the Secretary of State for Wales refusing our request to hold a Welsh Grand Committee on the constitutional implications for Wales of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill? Will you please make representations to the Secretary of State to ensure that she understands how strongly Welsh Members feel about this critical issue?

Mr Speaker: I am not sure that it is for me to make representations, as the hon. Gentleman invites me to do. However, he has put his concern-indeed, his very clear dissatisfaction-on the record. I trust that it will have been heard, but whether that is the end of the matter remains to be seen. I think that we will leave it there for the time being, but I am grateful to him.

Royal Commission (London)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Gareth Thomas: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the establishment of a Royal Commission to consider the future challenges facing London in housing, transport, the environment, population, equality, the City and the wider economy, and such other matters as the Royal Commission considers appropriate; and for connected purposes.
	London faces a series of major economic and social challenges to its economy and environment, and through the increase in its population, that will have profound consequences for housing in London, for our transport and energy needs, for businesses, potentially for Londoners' quality of life, and for levels of inequality in London. If those challenges and their consequences are thought through now-not just by one or two analysts, but by a wider cross section of Londoners-these challenges will also offer a series of major opportunities for our great city. However, if the long-term consequences of those challenges are ignored or left ill-considered because more short-term needs dominate, businesses, civil society and ordinary Londoners will lose out.
	There are mayoral and Assembly elections coming up in London, and inevitably, during those contests, there will be a focus on the future, but the significance and scale of the challenges that London faces are unlikely to get the level of attention they merit in the heat of an election campaign. There will be those who think that London gets too much attention, and that it draws too much light and focus away from the rest of the UK. I do not share that view. I have always thought that London, as the most important gateway to wider Britain and as our premier city, warrants more attention, not less.
	The Bill argues that the Government should establish a royal commission of those interested in London's long-term future to consider over the next 18 months the challenges and policy consequences for those in this Chamber, Whitehall, City Hall and London's local councils-challenges that those who come after our generation of politicians will still have to address.
	Royal commissions have, it is true, been out of fashion in recent years, but in the past they have considered difficult and politically tricky questions, helping to build a consensus for action. Carefully chosen, royal commissions have made powerful and important contributions to debates about big issues, creating the context for a series of difficult policy choices. The long-term future of the world's greatest capital city-the engine room of Britain's economy, and the beating heart of our political, social and cultural life-is surely worthy of such a commission.
	London's population is expected to rise by almost 1.4 million by 2033 to about 9.2 million, which will bring not only considerable economic opportunities, but a range of challenges in terms of demand for housing, further school places, health facilities and jobs. Housing supply has not kept pace-and it is not keeping pace now-with demographic or economic trends, leading to increased overcrowding and homelessness in London. Indeed, in the next 20 years, the number of households in London is projected to increase by around 585,000, or an average of 30,000 a year between 2011 and 2031. If those trends continue unchallenged and are not properly thought through, how likely is it that a child born today in central London whose parents live within the area bounded by the Circle line will be able to afford to live in the same area 40 years from now?
	A growing population will also have profound implications for our transport needs, with some forecasts predicting one third of London traffic travelling on very congested roads by 2025. Aviation demand is forecast to more than double by 2030, with a considerable increase in pressure on the capacity and performance of London's airports. As a country, too, we are committed to an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050. That has considerable implications for our future energy usage and how we live our lives. In particular, it raises the challenge of dramatically increasing sustainable energy levels and making buildings across the capital vastly more energy efficient, and doing so rapidly, over a comparatively short period.
	It is now a truism that one of the industries of the future lies in new green technologies. However, with investors looking with considerable interest at new green towns being built in China, Japan and the middle east, and with the global renewables market expanding too, a radical increase in the pace of sustainable living in London is not just a sensible environmental option; it is also essential economically to help to create the domestic UK and, crucially, London markets for green manufacturing, and for advanced engineering businesses and jobs to emerge. London therefore needs transforming into the world's leading low-carbon capital. A royal commission could help to paint the policy choices to drive that transformation.
	There are, too, long-term challenges to the future of London's economy, specifically with the rise in economic and political power of the east-there are the fast-growing economies of China and India in particular, and there are also countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam. Indeed, rising trade between emerging economies, cross-border mergers, acquisitions by Indian and Chinese companies and moves by developing world businesses to raise capital in each other's markets is already helping to increase the growth of financial centres in the fastest-growing economies. Frustration with London's bankers has become almost a spectator sport in the past two years, but London's economic future-indeed, our country's economic future-depends in no small part on retaining our premier league status for financial services. A re-embrace of the City is essential-a reformed and properly challenged City, of course, but a re-embrace nevertheless.
	Finally, London is already a very unequal city. Huge disparities in wealth exist between places within short distances of one another. The economic, environmental and population challenges that London faces will either drive London's wealthiest and poorest further apart, or, properly thought through, help to prevent or address London's poverty and inequality challenges. The hopes and dreams of Londoners and those who, often unknowingly, depend on London's success require the challenges facing London to be addressed with care and long-term consistency. I hope that the proposal in my Bill, in its small way, will help to do just that.

Mark Field: I support a great deal of the thrust of the argument that the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) has advanced today. He is right to say that London faces significant challenges, but I am not sure that a royal commission, as set out in the Bill, would be the right way to achieve our goals. Our capital city has faced a significant number of challenges over many years. Indeed, we could have had this same debate some 35 years ago in the mid-1970s. No one could deny that there has also been tremendous success, because London has always traditionally been an outward-looking city.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about financial services; they were well made. We have all had concerns about elements of the banking industry, but the financial services industry is clearly a world-beating business, without which the whole of the United Kingdom-not just London-would suffer. We need to ensure that the new, transformed landscape for financial services will allow London to maintain its competitive advantage, not least because, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, some 25 million Indians and Chinese are being added to the ranks of the global middle class every single year. Culturally, they have a higher propensity to save, and they will be the future customers and clients for financial services in the decades to come.
	In relation to the proposal for a royal commission, however, it is fair to say that we have had a mayoralty in London for the past 10 years. The hon. Gentleman might not like the colour of the current Mayor, but there has been a Labour Mayor for four fifths of that time. I want to defend Ken Livingstone, who had an eye towards the future, not least in regard to ensuring that the relationship between London and the key financial centres-not only in Asia but in Brazil and Russia-should be maintained. A lot of that work has been continued by the current Mayor, Boris Johnson. We have a structure of government that works well, although there were teething problems in the early days after the Mayor and the Greater London authority came into play. It works well now, however, and the Mayor-of whatever political colour-has an eye to the future of this great capital city, which is close not only to my heart but to that of the hon. Gentleman.
	It is important to raise the profile of London. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of inequality, but things have been that way since Dick Whittington walked down Highgate hill some 700 years ago. Indeed, since time immemorial London has been seen as a very unequal place, and it has always been polarised between some of the wealthiest and some of the poorest people. The hon. Gentleman made a good point, however, about opportunities for those who have been accustomed to living in central London, and he asked whether their children and grandchildren would be able to continue to do so.
	I feel that a royal commission is not the right way forward. I think that we can achieve these goals within the current construct of governance, with the Mayor and active borough leaders playing their part in ensuring that London's pre-eminence is maintained not only in this country but as a global capital.
	 Question put and agreed  to .
	 Ordered,
	That Mr Gareth Thomas, Meg Hillier, John McDonnell, Mike Gapes, Mr Andrew Love, Heidi Alexander, Jim Dowd, Stephen Timms and Malcolm Wicks present the Bill.
	Mr Gareth Thomas accordingly presented the Bill.
	  Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 June, and to be printed (Bill  76  ).

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, in addition to those of the Order of 6 September 2010:
	1. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be taken on each of the days as shown in the following Table and in the order so shown.
	2. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of the Table.
	
		
			  Day  Proceedings  Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 First day Clause 1 11.00 pm 
			 Second day Schedule 1, Clauses 2 and 3, Schedules 2 to 4, Clause 4, Schedule 5, Clauses 5 and 6 11.00 pm. 
			 Third day Clause 7, Schedule 6, Clauses 8 and 9 11.00 pm. 
			 Fourth day Clauses 10 to 13,  Schedule 7, Clauses 14 to 17 9.00 pm. 
			 Fifth day New Clauses, New Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill One hour after the moment of interruption. 
		
	
	- (Jeremy Wright.)

Mark Harper: I look forward to a rigorous debate on the issues in the Bill during its Committee stage. I am grateful to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee-whose Chairman, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is in his place-for the report that it published yesterday and for the considerable amount of work that it put into taking evidence from, among others, the Deputy Prime Minister and myself. Concerns were expressed about the amount of time available to the Committee, but that was clearly not a barrier to its producing a comprehensive report, and I thank all the members of the Committee for their diligence.
	The motion before us allows for five days of debate on the Floor of the House. I know that some Members have expressed concern that there will not be enough time to debate the provisions in the Bill, and we have tried to keep rigid programming to a minimum. As I said on Second Reading, however, we want to ensure-we have taken steps to do so in the programme motion-that the House will be able to debate and vote on the key issues raised by the Bill. In our view, the programme motion will allow that.
	For this 17-clause Bill, we have proposed five full days of Committee on the Floor of the House and two days for Report, which we think adequately recognises the importance of the issues. We have had discussions through the usual channels with the Opposition, who have not presented any objections to the timetable.

Peter Bone: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress he is making with this Bill, but will he explain why there is closure at 11 o'clock this evening? This is a constitutional Bill of vital importance, so why should we not be able to talk for as long as we want on the issues today?

Mark Harper: Given the previous Government's record on this matter, I would have thought that my hon. Friend would recognise that we are allowing extra time today to take account of the fact that we have just had a rightly lengthy and well attended statement. We granted extra time so that that statement did not unduly eat into the time available for debating this Bill. As I said, I would have thought that my hon. Friend, given his concern for Parliament, would have welcomed the progress made. We may not have gone as far as he would have wished, but I think that even he would recognise that we have gone some way further than the previous Administration did. I see him nodding his assent.

Mark Field: I accept, and give credit to party managers for ensuring, that we have a certain protection of time up to 11 pm today. However, does the Minister understand our concern that later in our consideration-certainly for the third and fourth day-a significant number of amendments have been tabled, so that we may not have enough time to debate the many issues surrounding exempted constituencies, for example, simply because a guillotine will come into force at 11pm or some other specified time?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly sensible point. We have allowed the number of days allotted and included some extra time, but we will clearly keep that under review. He will have noticed that on the fourth day-the same day as the comprehensive spending review-we have allowed an extra two hours for the Committee to sit. We have tried to take that into account, and it is also in the interest of Members to balance the time allotted to different parts of the Bill. As I say, however, we will keep this under review and see how the debate progresses. I have heard what my hon. Friend says, and I will review progress.

Mark Field: The Minister says that he is going to keep this under review, so would he consider changing this programme motion in order to grant extra days of debate or put back the end-point? If we vote for the motion today, will it be set in stone, as reviewing it might not satisfy those of us who are concerned that elements of the Bill will not get the full consideration they need?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend will know that on Second Reading, when the House voted by a considerable margin to support the principle of the Bill, it also supported the initial programme motion of 6 September, which set the number of days for debate. I listened very carefully to the wide-ranging debate on that day and picked out the issues that appeared to be of concern to Members on both sides of the House. That is what has driven this second programme motion-to try to ensure that the key issues are debated. Today, for example, we are to debate the date of the referendum and the question that it will put, and those issues will be debated. As I said, I listened carefully to the whole of the previous debate, so I believe we have captured the key issues. The House has already accepted that five days in Committee is the right period for consideration of the Bill.

Charles Walker: The Minister is being very generous, but bearing in mind that there will not be a general election until 2015, surely there is not that much of a rush to get this measure through the House.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend is right that the coalition Government are strong and that there will not be an election until 7 May 2015, as set out in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear, however, that we want the referendum to take place next year in order to make progress, and we also need to kick off the boundary review, ensuring that it reports in good time before the next election. That will allow parties across the House to select their candidates. We have secured a balance between moving at a reasonable pace, while also allowing adequate time for proper parliamentary debate. I think that we have done so.

Charles Walker: But why must we have the referendum in May next year?

Mark Harper: We made a commitment in the coalition agreement to have the referendum, and the Government believe that we should arrange to have it at an early opportunity, putting the question to the electors so that they can decide what voting system they want to use in the next election. That is the decision that the Government have made, and that is the view with which I will ask the Committee to agree later today. The House has already agreed with it in principle.

Andrew Turner: Clause 1 covers five pages of the amendment paper, whereas clause 9 requires 12 pages. Debate on clause 9, however, will occupy only about a third of the time occupied by debate on clause 1.

Mark Harper: In my view, it is a question not just of the number of pages, but of the substance of the issues involved. My hon. Friend will note that the Bill also contains a number of schedules, and, given that I have written to him and other Members today, he will know how we propose to deal with the combination amendment. Complicated technical issues occupying many pages may not raise significant issues, while significant issues requiring considerable debate may not occupy many pages. I do not think that the Committee should take a simple page-count approach.

Adam Afriyie: My hon. Friend is making a great presentation. The coalition agreement, to which most of us agreed and of which most of us are very supportive, contained a commitment to a referendum on alternative voting. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the date of the referendum was not included in the agreement, and therefore need not necessarily be part of this process?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend is right. I am glad that he finds my argument compelling, and I am sure that he will support the programme motion if Members feel the need to put it to a vote and test the opinion of the Committee.
	It is true that the coalition agreement committed both coalition parties in the Government to supporting a referendum on the voting system, and the Government subsequently decided that 5 May next year was the right date. The House has already endorsed the principle of the Bill, and later this afternoon we will conduct a line-by-line scrutiny of it. I will be asking Members on both sides of the Committee to endorse the date, although I will expect support only from Members on this side.

Ian Lucas: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous and very reasonable. In that spirit of reasonableness, will he have a word with his unreasonable colleague the Secretary of State for Wales, who is refusing to allow a Welsh Grand Committee debate on the implications for Wales of this major constitutional Bill? We have not been given any explanation for her decision. Would it not make sense to allow time for debate in a separate forum, to enable more time to be made available for debate in the Chamber?

Mark Harper: I simply do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's characterisation of my right hon. Friend the rather excellent Secretary of State for Wales. He will note that I have been joined in the Chamber by her Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), who will be supporting me on the Bill. There will be adequate time in the five days that we have provided for debate on how the Bill affects Wales, in terms of both the boundary changes and the referendum, and I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman and his Welsh colleagues-including the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench-will acquit themselves well in speaking up for Wales during that debate.
	The motion specifies the clauses and schedules that are to be debated, and the days on which they are to be debated. Beyond that, it will be for you, Mr Speaker, and for Members themselves, to decide how best to use the time. As I have already said in response to interventions, we have provided extra time on each day to allow for statements. On the fourth day, as we know, there will be a significant statement on the spending review, and having assumed that you will allow questions on it to run for a significant period, Mr Speaker, we have provided the necessary extra time.
	I believe that the programme allows the Committee adequate time. I believe that it delivers on the promise that I made on Second Reading to allow the significant issues to be both debated and voted on, and I hope that Members on both sides of the Committee will feel able to support it.

Chris Bryant: I have to say that the Minister is being remarkably blasé about this. I know that he goes blasé when he is trying to be nice, but- [Interruption.] Yes, he may be nice-he may have nice moments-but I am afraid that this is not a nice Bill so we will have to deal with him accordingly.
	We are, of course, very grateful for the extended hours. However, I should say that since Mr Speaker rightly allowed the recent statement to go on for some considerable time, as it addressed a matter of importance to many people, today our deliberations on the Bill will be briefer than they would have been if there had been no statement, and it is likely that that will be the case in many further days.

Mark Harper: So let's crack on.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman spoke for longer than I shall, so he can keep shtum for a moment.
	It would be better if there were no guillotines in the days provided for debate. As the Minister's colleague, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), asked: what is the rush? Does this Bill have to be hurried through because its measures are the glue that hold together the coalition-that is what Opposition Members suspect, and indeed I think that it is what the hon. Gentleman suspects as well-or is there some honourable, decent reason for that? We know the answer, of course.
	There is clearly a rush on. The Select Committee report has already said that hasty drafting and no consultation are the hallmarks. In recent years it has been extremely unusual for any constitutional reform Bill to go through this House without any pre-legislative scrutiny. I have also scoured history to find a constitutional Bill of this magnitude and significance that went through with so few days of consultation on the Floor of the House. The Minister says it is a short Bill, and that may be the case.

Mark Harper: rose -

Chris Bryant: The Minister has talked enough, and he wants us to get on with the business in hand. He said it is only a short Bill. However, although it may contain only a few clauses, it is 153 pages long, and it affects major and significant parts of our constitution. Also, he has crafted the motion in a way that allows us remarkably little freedom within each of the days and between the days. For instance, if we finish the business early on the second day, next Monday, we will not be able to proceed straight away with the business for the third day. We will almost certainly need to review that, because the business for the third day is clauses 7, 8 and 9 and schedule 6, which include the topic of precisely how the alternative vote would operate. We must remember that the Bill will never come back to the House if the referendum is carried-although I know that the Minister hopes it will not be carried.
	The measures to be discussed on the third day also give us the new rules for the Boundary Commissions, cutting up the rules that have existed for many years. In addition, there is the cutting of the number of parliamentary seats and the decision about how we distribute them. That, too, would never come back to the House for any vote hereafter, unless the House of Lords were to change the provisions. It would be wrong to concertina debate on all that into one single day. It is quite possible that that would mean that there would be perhaps half an hour or 40 minutes to discuss the Northern Irish element of the Bill, including the distribution of seats. That would not serve Northern Ireland well.
	As several Members have made clear, there is an additional point to do with the Secretary of State for Wales. I have to say that since becoming Secretary of State she has become far more sour than she was before, when she was a rather more pleasant individual. She has refused point blank to allow a Welsh Grand Committee to discuss the very significant issues that there are in relation to Wales.
	Therefore, although the Minister may be blasé, we are not buying any of this.

Richard Shepherd: It is a bit rich that the hon. Gentleman should repeat the same arguments as those that he listened to and swept aside when he was in a position to affect the outcome of such a debate.
	I am going to reflect on an irony. Along with every other Member, I participated in the last general election. The Deputy Prime Minister-who at the time was leader of the Liberal Democrats-repeatedly made a point about the "same old politics". That became a mantra, and I remember that his poll rating went up when he referred to it. Yet here we are having the same old politics announced from the Front Bench under his direction; this is his Bill. This is a constitutional measure, which we all understand is of considerable importance. It affects the constituencies, their nature and the nature of representation, and the way in which a Member is elected to this place. I can think of nothing as constitutionally profound as this-leaving aside European legislation-in all the time that I have been here. In addition, it is intended not to be unwound if it is won-that is the point behind it-so why are we looking at the same old politics?
	This motion is a guillotine: that is what it is, straight and simple. We need not waste time debating whether it is half an hour short here or two hours short there, or whether we lose part of the debate because of the importance of various clauses. This should have been allowed to roll in this House for as long as it took. That was the constitutional rule almost-

William Cash: Convention.

Richard Shepherd: Yes, it was the convention, but conventions have been swept away. Again, that was largely done by the Labour Front-Bench teams of the past 13 years, and one does not now hear the word "convention" used in the House. We have no cause, urgency or reason to accept a guillotine such as this. I must tell the Deputy Prime Minister, through my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is a very respected member of the Conservative party, that I shall not hesitate to vote against the Deputy Prime Minister's guillotine motion.

Hywel Williams: I wish to refer specifically to the Welsh Grand Committee issue. It has met to discuss matters of much less importance than this in the past. As Welsh Members will know, the Secretary of State has caused great controversy by changing the arrangements at the drop of a hat. She seems happy to do that on matters of less importance, but not on this one.
	The Welsh clause will be debated on day four-20 October-along with clauses 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, and schedule 7. That is also the day of the comprehensive spending review, so the media in Wales will not be dominated the following day by the details of the Welsh debate here-it will of course be dominated by the CSR and other matters-and the Welsh public will remain uninformed, as they are now, about the implications of the Government's proposals. There is a clear benefit in having a Welsh Grand Committee sitting, so that Welsh Members can have a specific day on which to debate issues specific to Wales.
	The Bill has huge implications for Wales-more so than for any other part of the UK. My former constituency, Caernarfon, was the most altered by the boundary changes put in place for the previous election and my constituents are still mystified about what happened. They were completely uninformed about that.  [Interruption.] I was re-elected, but for the Arfon constituency, which is substantially different. I just point out that there is therefore huge value, in terms of public debates and public information for the people of Wales, in having a Welsh Grand Committee debate, and I cannot see why we cannot have one.

Bernard Jenkin: I, too, will vote against this guillotine motion if the House divides, but I plead with hon. and right hon. Members not to divide the House, because we need to get on with discussing this Bill. I commend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), and the Front-Bench team for giving a reasonable amount of time to this Bill, but it is important that I should make three brief observations.
	First, I say to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that we are all steeped in hypocrisy in the way in which we protest against guillotines and then find ourselves voting for them when we sit on the Government Benches. He did that and I dare say that I too will do so from time to time. Secondly, the approach being taken is the old way of doing things. We look forward to these arrangements being governed by a business Committee of the whole House, which reflects the interests of the whole House and will ensure that these things are discussed as a broad consensus in the House would want them discussed, rather than how those on the Treasury Bench see fit.
	My third observation is that this is an important matter, because as we will discover-both those of us who have been through this process before and new Members-the disadvantage of having a knife fall in the middle of detailed discussions on a Bill of this nature is that we will discover things that may not have occurred to more than one Member in this House. Yet those arguments and discussions will be cut down in their prime.
	I just hope that those on the Treasury Bench have considered the consequence of there being too many such occasions: it will whet the appetite of the other place. Time saved in this House may result in time added to scrutiny of the Bill in the other place. I urge those on the Treasury Bench seriously to keep under review the possibility of extending the time for debate on the Bill. I commend the Minister for saying that he will keep the matter under review. If he really wants to save time, the best way of saving time in the other place is for us to scrutinise the Bill properly. If we feel that our discussion has been cut short, we will encourage the other place to take whatever time is necessary.
	The Electoral Commission has made it clear that unless the rules of the forthcoming referendum are settled six months before the referendum date, it will not support the referendum date of 5 May 2011. There is no possibility of the Bill completing all its stages by 5 November, so it is putting itself in a position in which it has to make a judgment on whether the clauses relating to the referendum are sufficiently settled before the Bill has completed its parliamentary stages and received Royal Assent.
	I remember repeatedly saying in opposition that we should not amend the constitution in haste and should not gerrymander the constitution for the convenience of the governing party, yet I fear that the guillotine motion reflects that that is exactly what is happening. For that reason, if the House divides-I hope that it will not-I will vote against the guillotine motion.

Peter Bone: If the House divides tonight, I shall not support the programme motion. A constitutional issue of this kind should be scrutinised in full; Members of Parliament are elected to the House to do exactly that. Whether we are on the Opposition or the Government Benches, our job is to scrutinise the Government's Bills, and constitutional Bills need the greatest scrutiny.
	I have no objection to the Government allowing five days for debate; if they had not put a limit on the time until which we could debate on those days, that would have been fine. The Government say that there is plenty of time to discuss the Bill. If that is so, they do not need to close the business at 9 o'clock or 11 o'clock in the evening. If I am right, and the House wants to carry on a bit beyond that, let it talk on. That is what this House-this mother of democracy-is about. Forget the Labour years when the House was a rubber stamp. Let us turn the House back into what it should be: it should scrutinise the Government.
	This is the start of the new democracy. In Committee, Government Members will be able to vote against the party line on matters that are not in the manifesto. That is a great improvement, and it is a great enabling power that the Prime Minister has given us. However, limiting debate so that we never reach clauses, and so cannot discuss and vote on them, is pointless.
	We have at the Dispatch Box a Minister of great courage and ability. If he were to say at the end of this debate, "We will remove the time limit for the last four days," his career would blossom, and I urge him to do that.

William Cash: I endorse all the remarks that have been made by my hon. Friends, and I, too, will vote against the programme motion if there is a Division. I simply add to the arguments already ably put forward that this is a constitutional Bill. One has to ask why there are conventions governing such Bills. The answer, as is well established by those who study these matters and who have learned from experience, is that there is a reason for the rule. The reason is that the Bill is important to the future of the electorate of the United Kingdom. It is seminal.
	This is not just one of those occasions when one sees people get up and declaim that there is some great constitutional issue at stake and then on examination it turns out not to be anything of the kind. This is genuinely a constitutional Bill, and we deserve the opportunity to debate it properly. I shall vote against the programme motion on principle because it is in contravention of the conventions of this House. As we see the tsunami of constitutional aberrations inflicted on us in defiance of our manifesto and the wishes of the electorate, I am afraid I will have to continue to vote against the proposals because they are in defiance of the interests of the electorate of the UK.

Graham Allen: The Minister said some fine words about the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. We tried hard, and members from both sides of the House worked incredibly hard, to get before the House the report that is in the Vote Office, and which I personally sent to every Member of Parliament on Friday by e-mail so that they could be informed about some of the broader issues before the debate got under way.
	We are complaining about the number of days on the Floor of the House, but that number exceeds the number of days that the Select Committee was given to look at this issue in detail. There is a problem with that. People may say, "Well, we can make it good on the Floor of the House." The Floor of the House is a hothouse, and people can be controversial and take sides. If we allow effective pre-legislative scrutiny by a Select Committee made up of members of all shades of opinion, we end up with a view, and some research done on behalf of all Members of the House that, I hope, carries some weight. If the Government take away that weight and that scrutiny, if they deny Members whom the House asked to undertake that job the time to do it effectively, they delegitimise the Bill.
	Other people have said that if we cannot have a proper debate in the House of Commons, the debate goes to the other place. As a House of Commons person and a parliamentarian, I do not want to see that. It is essential that the House be allowed to debate whatever issue to the fullest extent. When the issue is one that strikes at the very heart of our democracy, that raises issues of national concern, whether it is the number of Members of Parliament, the boundaries, the question on the referendum paper or our electoral system, surely it is even more necessary that this House should have the proper processes to do its job properly.
	We are discussing a programme motion before we get stuck into the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. Just as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, perhaps we need to look again very soon at the idea of the business Committee. We also need to look again at timetabling sensible scrutiny at the beginning of the legislative process, not halfway through it, as we are about to go into battle on particular clauses and fight each other and have debates and votes. I would ask the Minister to learn some lessons on this Bill, which are applicable to future democratic Bills in the pipeline. If he does not, he places us all in the difficulty that we are sending to the other place Bills that may be faulty, are not legitimate and have not had the proper debate that they deserve. Then, we should not complain if we reap the whirlwind of that decision. It lies in the hands of this House and this Chamber.

Ian Davidson: I too want to speak about legitimacy and adequacy of consideration in my capacity as Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee. We decided that we did not wish to look at the entirety of the Bill; that it was more appropriately dealt with by another Committee. However, it was appropriate for us to discuss, following a seminar with the Electoral Commission, the impact of holding the AV referendum on the same day as the Scottish elections. It was appropriate that we should seek views from political Scotland on its observations, and we did so. I am not convinced that the House, having made that effort to consult Scotland, has left sufficient time under the proposals for those views, which I understand were circulated to Members by e-mail only yesterday, to be taken into account by the Government.
	A strong view has been expressed by civic Scotland that is hostile to the proposals in the main. The Government may well decide to ignore it, which is entirely their right and responsibility, but I do not believe that they have considered it at all, which undermines the credibility of the debate in the House. Should the measures go through without due consideration it would be only right, in those circumstances, that another place should intervene to send some of them back.

Question put-
	 The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 256.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

[Relevant documents:  Third Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, P arliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, HC 437, and the oral evidence taken before the Committee on the Coal ition Government's programme of  political and constitutional reform on Thursday 15 July, HC 358-i .]

[1st Allocated Day]

Considered in Committee

[Mr Nigel Evans  in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	Referendum on the alternative vote system

Angus MacNeil: I beg to move amendment 155, page 1, leave out line 6 and insert-
	'(2) (a) The Electoral Commission shall within two months of Royal Assent to this Act specify
	the date on which the referendum is to be held.
	(b) The specified date must be-
	(i) within 18 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, and
	(ii) a date on which no other election to a parliament or assembly in the United Kingdom is to be held.
	(c) The Minister must lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council to give effect to the specified date.
	(d) The draft of the Order in Council under paragraph (c) above shall not be laid before Parliament until the specified date has been agreed by the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales.'.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 4, page 1, line 6, leave out
	'must be held on 5 May 2011'
	and insert-
	'shall be held on a date specified in an order made by the Minister, provided that such date-
	(a) shall not coincide with any poll or polls held for any parliamentary assembly or regularly held local government election; and
	(b) shall be at least six months after the commencement of the referendum period (as specified in Schedule 1).'.
	Amendment 126, page 1, line 6, leave out 'on 5 May 2011' and insert
	'within 18 months of Royal Assent on a date that shall not coincide with any poll or polls for any parliamentary assembly or regularly held local government elections, to be specified by order subject to the approval of both Houses and following a consultation undertaken by the Electoral Commission.'.
	Amendment 1, page 1, line 6, leave out '5 May 2011' and insert '8 September 2011'.
	Amendment 124, page 1, line 6, leave out '5 May' and insert '2 June'.
	Amendment 225, page 1, line 6, leave out '5 May 2011' and insert
	'the day of the next general election'.
	Amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 14, line 7, leave out
	'day on which this Act is passed'
	and insert 'relevant date'.
	Amendment 6, page 14, line 8, at end insert-
	'1A (1) For the purposes of paragraph 1(a) above the "relevant date" is a date specified in an order made by the Minister, after consultation to be held after Royal Assent to this Act with the Electoral Commission as to an appropriate period for the fair conduct of the referendum.
	(2) If in the opinion of the Electoral Commission the date on which Royal Assent is given to this Act would mean that there would be an insufficient period for the fair conduct of the referendum if it were held on the date otherwise required by section 1, the Minister may by order specify such later date on which the referendum shall be held as the Electoral Commission shall approve.'.

Angus MacNeil: I am glad that I may speak to our amendment on the date of the referendum on the voting system.
	The current proposed date makes the referendum a squatter in another's house, perhaps even a parasite. It is quite unbelievable that, of all possible days, one has been chosen that means the concerns of parts of the current UK are completely overlooked and disregarded. It is almost as though the Bill were intended to find opponents, and it has been successful in that end. It has created a coalition of opponents.
	The handling of the referendum's timing has been at best insensitive and insulting and at worst high-handed and cack-handed. In Scotland, we have already moved our council elections by a year so that they do not interfere with the parliamentary elections and vice versa. We have shown respect for others and each other. I have heard about the respect agenda, and I am now seeing its substance. I have also heard about the Liberal-Tory big society, and I wonder whether that is as vacuous, but that is another debate.
	The fact that the Electoral Commission has sent guidance to Scotland's 32 local authorities informing them that the referendum will be "the senior poll" is bad news for all of us who respect what happens in the Scottish Parliament. The counting of ballots for the Scottish Parliament will come second, which could delay some Scottish parliamentarians' results until the next day, or perhaps even later given Scottish geography or, as I can testify from the experience of the 2007 election, weather. The same could apply in Northern Ireland. Wales has already seen the problem coming and moved its elections, because there are to be two referendums, a council election and an Assembly election in 2011.
	For all parties in Scotland, the question is why Scottish issues should be put on the back burner for a referendum for which there appears to be little real public appetite. There has been surprisingly honest input on that question-hostile, some might call it, although we might call it sensible. There has been sensible input from Jim Tolson, who happens to be the Liberal Democrat MSP for Dunfermline West. He has supported us, saying that he is very much against having a referendum on the same day as the Scottish election. Oh, that the Liberal Democrats south of the border could show the same sense.

Ian Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Jim Tolson's submission was one of a number that were made to the Scottish Affairs Committee, which have now been circulated to the House as a whole by e-mail? I hope that all Members will study them in great detail.

Angus MacNeil: I welcome that input from the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee. We all look forward to opening that e-mail and spending many happy hours reading it.

Ian Davidson: You can overdo it, you know.

Angus MacNeil: Maybe not happy hours, just hours.
	Tom Aitchison, the convenor of the interim electoral management board for Scotland, has expressed sensible concerns about holding the UK's alternative vote referendum on the same day as the Scottish Parliament poll. The proposal is an example of bad practice, and perhaps a slippery slope. In the United States, referendums are often used as wedge issues-some would allege that the Republican strategist Karl Rove uses them for exactly that purpose. We do not want our democracies hijacked by side issues on the day of a main vote that has been expected for years.

Iain Stewart: If I recall the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 correctly, the Scottish Parliament has the ability to vary the date of its election. If there is concern about having the polls on the same day, surely it could move the election a few weeks either side.

Angus MacNeil: I hear the hon. Gentleman's accent. I have heard about the respect agenda, but I smell cultural imperialism in its worst form.
	The UK's media are pretty poor at dealing with complexities across the UK, and we are concerned that the important issues that will rightly come before the Scottish people will be sidelined by an "X Factor" media dealing with the simpler issue of the referendum. It happens in the US-it is the big ticket election, which affects all viewers, listeners, readers and dare I say media consumers, that counts, regardless of the importance of the issues being debated. However, is daily health and education policy not more important than the type of electoral system that is employed every four to five years? That is not to say that the electoral system is unimportant, but surely it is further down the hierarchy of needs and importance.

Michael Weir: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a disconnect, because serious politicians in Scotland will be dealing with issues of health and education, which are so important in our Parliament? There will be no real debate about the alternative vote because, frankly, no one is interested in it. There will therefore be a double whammy.

Angus MacNeil: My hon. Friend's assertion is correct. The referendum, when it arrives, will probably receive very little attention in Scotland, because those of us involved in politics will not waste any time discussing whether we are for or against. We will have greater priorities that affect Scots day in, day out-and not a voting system for Westminster that comes along every four or five years.  [ Interruption. ] I think that I have roused some Members.

Louise Bagshawe: Which is it to be: will the referendum arouse no interest whatsoever in Scotland because we have weightier matters to discuss, or will it drown out all other voices and deprive the Scottish people of the ability to consider their local elections?

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Lady misses the point: the way in which the UK is constructed, the way in which finance goes into the media in the UK, and where the media broadcast from and are centralised. Everybody accepts that that issue will dominate.

Richard Fuller: It is not clear whether the hon. Gentleman's position is that there should be a referendum on another date, or whether he views the issue as so irrelevant that it should be held on no date. Is it no date or a different date?

Angus MacNeil: I have clearly engaged the hon. Gentleman well, because he anticipates my next point. I remind him of what I have said: it is not that the electoral system is unimportant; it is just that it is lower down the hierarchy of needs and importance.

Henry Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman truly saying that the electorate lack the sophistication to understand various different issues at the same time? In other words, is he saying that the electorate cannot walk and chew gum at the same time?

Angus MacNeil: I am saying not that the electorate have any difficulties, but that the media that broadcast into people's homes have a difficulty. If the hon. Gentleman is secure and certain of the sophistication of the electorate, he will doubtless support the inclusion of the single transferable vote, and perhaps other forms of election on the ballot paper. That would give proper cognisance to the sophistication of the electorate.

Cathy Jamieson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me and with Tom Aitchison, to whom he has already referred, that this is not simply a matter of the sophistication of the electorate? Mr Aitchison has identified serious practical problems, not least, as he put it in his evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, the problems of sourcing enough ballot boxes, the hiring of additional venues and the expense of hiring additional staff.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Lady makes her point well; I will add no more, other than to thank her for that intervention.
	The amendment tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends seeks to correct the huge error that has been made and to enable a day to be found, with the Electoral Commission taking the lead, so that the referendum can take place on a date on which no other election to a Parliament or Assembly in the United Kingdom is to be held. To that end, it seeks respect and consultation between the UK's parliamentary and Assembly institutions. I have not prescribed a specific date, but have specified a time frame within which a referendum could take place. That would enable everything to occur and the process to be completed before the next UK election, which was alluded to during the programme motion debate.
	My thinking in framing the amendment was to avoid being prescriptive and repeating the Deputy Prime Minister's error of finding a date and arguing for it, regardless of what else might be happening on that date. My main motivation has been to respect already established processes and elections by finding another day, consensually and with respect for all by all. I do not, however, rule out supporting other amendments through a mechanism of mutual support.
	I move the amendment because, although this issue is important-the Committee would not be discussing it if it was not-it is not as important as the range of policy choices to be made in Scotland and the re-election of an SNP Government on 5 May 2011.

Bernard Jenkin: I rise to move amendment 4, which was tabled in my name and those of my colleagues and which is associated with amendments 5 and 6.

Jimmy Hood: Order. I must advise the hon. Gentleman that he cannot move his amendment. He can speak to it, but he cannot move it.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful for the correction. My mistake reflects a gross lack of experience in this place, for which I apologise. I will vote on my amendments if I get the opportunity, but I will also support the amendment that has just been moved in the name of the nationalists.
	I appreciate that, following the heated discussion about this issue during the summer, we are less likely to win this vote. Early-day motion 613 attracted a large number of signatures, including those of some 40 or 45 Conservative Members, some of whom have been made Parliamentary Private Secretaries, with one being given the deputy chairmanship of the Conservative party. Other promises have no doubt been made and career-ending threats have certainly been delivered. I wonder what would happen to the date of this referendum if there was a free vote, but that is clearly not going to happen.

Julian Lewis: May I express extreme disappointment that, as one of the people who signed the early-day motion, no offers have been made to me whatsoever?

Bernard Jenkin: My hon. Friend should call that freedom. It is surprising that this has turned out to be a matter of such extreme importance to the coalition. The question is not whether the yes or no campaign will do better on this or that date-some people profess to know, but I confess that I do not-but why the Government think it is in the national interest or, dare I say it, in their interest to have the referendum on that particular date, and why it is so important to this Government. The only explanation that we have been given so far relates to money, but, considering the scale of the national deficit, I regard £30 million as more of an excuse than a reason. It is rather like the schoolboy whose excuse that he was late for school because he missed the bus does not exactly explain why he missed the bus.
	There might be a perceived advantage for the yes campaign in having an early date before the Government incur too much disapproval from voters in relation to the difficult decisions that have to be made about the deficit. The yes campaign might perceive an advantage from a higher turnout, although the NO2AV campaign disputes that. The yes campaign might perceive an advantage in confusion and ignorance, because there is bound to be more confusion and ignorance about the substance of the issue, which I will address later in my remarks, if the polls are combined.

Graham Stringer: The hon. Gentleman stated that, if there was a free vote, his amendment would almost certainly be agreed to. Does he agree that, if there was a free vote, there would not be a referendum?

Bernard Jenkin: That is outside the purview of my amendment.
	There might be a perceived advantage to the yes campaign, which the Deputy Prime Minister is pursuing, or to the coalition. There is a risk of a serious collapse in Liberal Democrat support at next year's local Scottish and Welsh elections, but it would be of advantage to the Liberal Democrats to have the enticement of the referendum on the reform of the electoral system to encourage their activists to press their voters out to vote. I might be wrong-I will stand corrected if I am-but we have not had an explanation. Either way, it is wrong in principle that the Executive should seek to use elections to influence the outcome of a referendum on an important constitutional question, or that they should use the referendum to influence the outcome of elections.
	Amendment 4, which is in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is similar to amendment 155-the Scottish National party proposal. It provides for an order whereby the Government can choose any date that does not coincide with a poll that is regularly held for parliamentary, Assembly or local government elections. In addition, it proposes-this is important-that the referendum is held
	"at least six months after the commencement of the referendum period".
	As I mentioned, the Electoral Commission made it clear that it will press for a deferment of the referendum if the rules of the referendum are not clear on a six-month time frame from the proposed date. In fact, the referendum period should count, because it restricts what people can spend and what Ministers can say or announce to promote a particular viewpoint, which might distort the result. The six-month period provides the framework of discipline that provides the fairness of the referendum. Unless we have a six-month referendum period, which is not possible if we do not change the date, we are tempting providence that there will be an unfair referendum.

Tristram Hunt: Is the hon. Gentleman any clearer on the Government's intentions if the House of Lords makes a significant amendment on the timing of the referendum?

Bernard Jenkin: I have had no indication what would happen in that situation. I assume that the Government would accept such an amendment, because they cannot afford to delay the Bill. I would point to other amendments in the group that refer to the referendum period and are consequential on it.
	The real reason for avoiding the combination of polls with referendums is fairness. Whatever the merits of combining referendums with elections throughout the referendum constituency, all voters should at least be treated the same. It is obvious from the date on the table at the moment that voters are being treated differently in different parts of the country.
	When the then Prime Minister, Mr Blair, was contemplating holding a referendum on the euro on the same day as Welsh and Scottish elections, Professor Larry LeDuc, one of the world's leading referendum academics, made it clear that he could not recall one similar case of such differential treatment of a referendum electorate. I challenge anyone to find an example of a serious country putting a serious decision to its people in a referendum when there is such different treatment of electors.
	Professor LeDuc thought that the UK proposal was probably unique and volunteered this opinion:
	"The effects...would not be uniform across the country. It would likely produce considerable distortion with regard to turnout, the nature of the campaign, and a variety of other matters that might be difficult to determine in advance. The referendum, if it occurs, would be a different sort of political event in England than it would be in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I can't think of a case parallel to that anywhere else."

Alan Beith: There is an obvious reason for that. In the United States, where it is common practice to combine referendums with a series of elections, there is a system by which almost all elections are held on the same day in all states. That situation does not exist here. Parts of our country have devolved Assemblies and others do not.

Bernard Jenkin: We have come to a strange pass when Liberal Democrats hold the United States up as a model of democracy. Another point is that the United States has not changed its voting system. It has used the one it inherited from this place: the plain, straightforward, vanilla, winner-takes-all system. Perhaps that is why US democracy works so well. In fact, I do not know any academic authority that would hold up the US as a model of running referendums, and I will come back to that in a moment.
	Perhaps the most useful thing I can do for Members at this juncture is simply to run through briefly what the Electoral Commission decided in 2002-03. I obtained the papers from a freedom of information request from the commission. On turnout, the commission argued that
	"the effects of a combined poll may distort the result, albeit whilst increasing turnout"
	and that
	"the turnout of combined polls can have varied results. As such, the benefits do not appear to be so great or definitive as to automatically over-ride any potential problems a combined poll might bring."
	On the question of constitutional confusion, the commission argued:
	"Holding a referendum implies that there is a constitutional"
	or
	"important issue being put to the country"
	and therefore that it is
	"preferable that the issue being debated is subject to as little 'interference' or influence from other ongoing activities, such as a general, regional and/or local elections. For example, shifting attitudes towards political parties, their relative un/popularity of the day, may have a greater impact on the referendum result than feelings or knowledge about the issue at hand".
	The commission concluded:
	"It is essential that any referendum campaign and result is seen to be elevated above party politics. This is difficult to achieve in a combined poll".
	By any stretch of the imagination, the referendum will decide a constitutional issue, and one which divides all parties-there are people even in the Conservative party who are mad enough to consider the alternative vote. [Hon. Members: "Name them!"] Allow me to correct myself: some Conservatives are mad enough to consider supporting the alternative vote because they want something else. The idea that an AV referendum should be decided amid the furore of the party political battle-in Scotland, for example, public spending cuts will have to be hotly debated-seems extremely unsatisfactory to me, as the 2002-03 proposal did to the Electoral Commission.

Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that politicians might discuss public spending cuts rather than the referendum? There will be a disconnect, because the BBC, for example, might broadcast news only on the referendum, but the battle on the ground will be completely different. That will also skew the result.

Bernard Jenkin: If I may, I will come to the question of broadcasting balance when I have dealt with campaign confusion.
	The commission stated:
	"The issue surrounding different political parties campaigning together (referendum) and against each other (elections) may also cause confusion, and consequent disinterest (even hostility), among voters."
	On reflection, perhaps the yes campaign wants hostility. Let us face it: that campaign wants a plague on all our houses, and to change the system at a stroke to reflect the hostility that people feel towards this place. I am sure that the yes campaign will seek to press that button.

Andrew Griffiths: My hon. Friend mentioned the Electoral Commission. Given the commission's role in overseeing the AV referendum, is he concerned about the fact that the chair of the commission, Jenny Watson, used to work for Charter 88, which is a pro-European lobby group?

Bernard Jenkin: When my hon. Friend says "pro-European," I think he means pro-electoral reform. I have no such concerns; I have the highest respect for Jenny Watson. I think that, because of her previous position, she we will want to be seen to be as impartial as possible. It is a natural concern, but people would be wrong to draw that conclusion from her conduct of her office.

Thomas Docherty: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the submission to the Scottish Affairs Committee from Fairer Votes, the pro-PR campaign in Scotland, which has also argued for holding the referendum on a different day. Even those in favour of AV do not support the proposed date.

Bernard Jenkin: The date of 5 May 2011 is losing friends very quickly.
	The Electoral Commission argues that the environment in which voters live may influence voting patterns. Voters in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales would be
	"subject to more intensive and varied campaigning than the electorate in England (in a nationwide referendum)...Certain parts of the electorate may feel that they are less well informed about the referendum issue than in other parts of the country. Conversely, they may feel that they are not as well informed about the national and/or local elections."
	Those are all reasons why confusion could be generated in a referendum.
	Perhaps the most important consideration is broadcasting transparency. The Electoral Commission also recognised that
	"the requirement to present balanced reporting of elections and a referendum is an especially difficult issue to manage when holding combined polls. Distinguishing between election and referendum campaign activities will be extremely difficult, if not impossible in some instances...These issues may have a negative effect on voter awareness; it will also make the monitoring of broadcasting (and campaign expenses) more difficult."
	The then BBC chief political advisor said in February 2002 that she had met Helen Liddell, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, and Jack McConnell, the then First Minister, and that she had
	"made my views very clear to the politicians and the BBC...it was a bad move...condescending to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland...it would put broadcasters in an impossible position".
	It is not difficult to see why. How many parties in the Scottish elections will broadly support changing the voting system? It may be two, three, four or even none. But how many will be on the other side of the argument? How can a programme that has a panel of guests to talk about the election and the referendum possibly be balanced? How can the BBC achieve balance and transparency on the referendum issue at the same time as it does so on the Scottish elections?

Richard Fuller: I am listening to my hon. Friend's speech with great interest. He questions the ability of the media to construct a panel in such circumstances. We often say that we want local issues, rather than national issues, to dominate local elections, but the national perspective can be focused very much on a single issue, as in this case, and it is surely not beyond the wit of broadcasters to sort the matter out-including those in the BBC, who are paid considerable sums to do so.

Bernard Jenkin: I am merely quoting the former chief political adviser to the BBC who said that it would put broadcasters in an impossible position. My hon. Friend's argument is with her, not me.
	Broadcasters are especially important in referendums and elections. Viewers may not be generally aware of the obligation for broadcasters-unlike newspapers-to provide balanced coverage, but they accord respect to broadcast programmes reflecting that obligation. Using the BBC as a proxy for the centralism of British broadcasting, it is worth reflecting that only 3% of the output across seven BBC networks broadcast to the whole of Britain comes from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where 17% of the audience live. Those figures may be out of date but that does not invalidate the substance of the point.
	Viewers in Scotland will see the AV referendum on the UK news with little or no news of the Scottish election. Coverage of the Scottish elections will therefore be more in the hands of the press, who are not bound by the requirements of balance. This tension in the structure of broadcasting proved politically controversial in April 1995 when the BBC in London scheduled an extended edition of "Panorama" with an interview with the then Prime Minister John Major. Unfortunately, that was only three days before the Scottish elections. After a court action, Lord Abernethy, later backed by Lord Hope, Lord Murray and Lord McCluskey, granted an injunction banning transmission in Scotland so as to ensure fair coverage of the elections there. How would it be possible for any programme about the referendum transmitted in London to be banned in the same way if it were thought that it might distort the coverage of the elections in Scotland?
	It goes without saying that the AV referendum will be heavily covered by the broadcasters in London, where there will be no elections at the time-not even local ones. The Ladbroke Grove set will therefore be obsessed with the referendum and not very interested in anything else. I cannot see how a business of the size and complexity of the BBC can balance all these issues so as to provide fair coverage.
	The Electoral Commission also mentioned respect for devolved institutions. I was an opponent of devolution, but we now have a Scottish Parliament that reflects the sovereign will of the sovereign Scottish people. I am afraid that the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart)-an English Member, albeit with an impeccable Scottish lineage and a lovely Scottish accent-that we could tell the Scottish Parliament to move its elections, because we are more important, is not a very Unionist sentiment. It is bound to cause exactly the kind of resentment and mistrust between the Westminster Parliament and the Scottish Parliament that surely we want to avoid-so the Scottish nationalists would probably love it.
	The Electoral Commission concluded its now famous press release from July 2002 by stating:
	"Referendums on fundamental issues of national importance should be considered in isolation".
	As a coda to that account, I shall turn briefly to the arguments advanced by the commission today. It says that it has based its decision to reverse its position on the date on the available research, including from countries where combining referendums with other polls is commonplace. In the US, for example, the big concern about combined elections is that people have so many ballot papers to deal with at a time that they vote in the elections but not in the referendums. That system is therefore not necessarily a guarantee of turnout and the US is not a great model for the good conduct of referendums.
	The commission cites the US, Australia, Ireland and several European countries, including Switzerland and Finland. However, the commission has ignored the fact that Australia has compulsory voting, so turnout is hardly an issue. We can therefore dismiss that argument. Finland is an interesting example. I was forwarded an e-mail from Dr Maija Setälä who is a research fellow in the political science department of the University of Turku. She says:
	"The UK electoral commission is absolutely wrong; we have had two national referendums: one in 1931 on prohibition law and another one in 1994 on the EU accession. Both were initiated by the parliamentary majority. Both of these referendums were advisory. So, Finland is about as active in using referendums as the UK."
	In fact, we have more experience of using referendums than Finland. For the Electoral Commission even to mention Finland as an example that we should follow, when it has had so little experience of referendums, underlines the lack of quality in its research.
	The Electoral Commission paper, which went along with what the Government wanted, reflects a distinct lack of consultation outside the commission until the date was already decided on. The people in the BBC whom I personally addressed on this question said, "Well, we don't really want to pick a fight with the Government, because we have our own battles to fight with them." To expect the BBC to weigh in against the Government's date was perhaps a little optimistic of me, but I had to try. The quality of the commission's consultation and research has been lacking, which probably reflects the fact that most of its people have changed since 1992. However, the fundamental point about the paper is that it does not address substantively any of the arguments advanced in 2002 in favour of separate polls.

Justin Tomlinson: Throughout your speech, you have quoted many supportive references, and made a very strong argument, but you have not mentioned what the electorate would want-

Jimmy Hood: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I have not been making a speech.

Justin Tomlinson: Would the electorate really want to come out and vote twice on an issue, when they could get it over with in one day?

Bernard Jenkin: If we were really keen on reflecting what the electorate of this country want, we would not give them a referendum at all, because I do not think they want one. [Hon. Members: "Europe!"] In the interests of coalition unity, let us not go there-I think that is the expression.

Nicholas Boles: Has my hon. Friend not just revealed the truth of his position, which is that he has constructed a very elegant, beautifully researched and fascinating argument for a position that I do not think he really holds? His real position is that he does not want a referendum at all, because he does not want AV and thinks that we might lose the referendum. I agree with him on AV-I do not want it either-but I think he lacks confidence in the first-past-the-post system and our party's ability, and that of many supporters on the Labour Benches, such as the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), who made a fantastic speech in support of first past the post, to win the argument. He has therefore constructed this elaborate mechanism to make an argument that he does not really buy.

Bernard Jenkin: I am rather touched-I have never been accused of lacking confidence before. I think that the NO2AV campaign will win whatever the date, and I have every confidence that AV will be trashed at the polls. However, I do not think that my hon. Friend has been listening to my point. The question is not whether the date should be moved for the convenience of the yes or no campaigns; it is an issue of principle. If we believe in direct democracy, as I do, we should want the issues addressed in a referendum to be separated and-as the Electoral Commission used to put it-elevated above the party political battle, so that the British people have a fair and uncluttered opportunity to understand those issues. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will support either the amendment in the name of the nationalists or, failing that, the amendment that I will move later.

Sadiq Khan: I pay tribute to the serious contributions made in the first few speeches. Even if things do not turn out how those hon. Members would like this evening, I am sure that colleagues in the other place will read their speeches with great interest when they come to decide on the future of this Bill.
	I relish my new role and the prospect of working with the coalition Government and, in particular, with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, both of whom are clearly committed to an agenda of reforming the Government's political programme and strengthening our democracy. However, I am disappointed that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here. I appreciate that he has other important things to do, but it is ironic-this draws on a point made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles)-that the biggest proponent and advocate of the alternative vote is not here to talk about it.
	The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is right that the burden should be on those of us who want AV to prove the case to the British people, first, that they should be motivated sufficiently to turn out on a separate date and vote on AV and, secondly, that they should vote yes in the referendum. I am disappointed, therefore, that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here. He is the great reformer, and his not being here sends, I am afraid, all the wrong messages to those of us who want to join him in changing how we vote in the House of Commons.

Julian Lewis: Those of us who do not want AV under any circumstances are actually rather heartened by the fact that, apart from Liberal Democrat Front-Bench Members, who perhaps have to be here, there are only two Liberal Democrat Members-albeit very distinguished ones-favouring this stage of the debate with their presence.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman knows all about conspiracy theories, and there will be people around the country with their own conspiracy theories about why so few Liberal Democrat Members are here.
	The Bill has some positive aspects. In particular, some of us think that the proposals for a referendum on the voting system are good ones, but unfortunately we have concerns, as we will discuss, that other aspects of the Bill will do much to undermine, rather than enhance, British democracy. I am afraid that those aspects appear to be the product of narrow party interests, and given how the Bill has been drafted, there is a danger that those of us who would otherwise have supported it, and who ordinarily would have been allies of those on the coalition Front Bench and the Deputy Prime Minister will be forced to oppose it. The Committee has the opportunity to iron out those flaws so that the legislation can be made to support the high ideals of constitutional reform in the national interest, to which the coalition aspired only five months ago.
	The starting point for today's debate is clause 1, which, as was explained by the previous two speakers, stipulates that a referendum on moving to the alternative vote system for parliamentary elections "must" be held on 5 May 2011. As has been said by the chuntering hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), the Committee will know that only one party-the Labour party-went into the last election with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on moving to AV. That commitment was made after an attempt by the then Labour Government to legislate for such a referendum earlier this year through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Unfortunately, however, those provisions were blocked by Conservative peers in the unelected House of Lords-so the conspiracy theory about why the Deputy Prime Minister is not here will continue. Furthermore, I am happy to note-and put the record right-that clauses providing for a referendum had previously been passed by a substantial majority thanks, in part, to the support of Liberal Democrat Members, one or two of whom have bothered to be here today while we discuss clause 1 of this great reforming Deputy Prime Minister's Bill.
	It is right to give the people a choice between the first-past-the-post and the alternative vote systems. AV is, like first past the post, a majoritarian system that maintains the single Member constituency link. However, it offers voters the ability to express a greater range of preferences than does first past the post, and that element has, arguably, become more salient in recent years, with the resurgence of multi-party politics in the late 20th century. AV is also more likely to secure the return of Members of Parliament with the preferences of more than 50% of electors. However, the strength of that likelihood varies depending on the form of AV used. It should be noted-I am sure that colleagues are aware of this-that the system proposed in the Bill allowing voters to express as many or as few preferences as they like would not guarantee the return of every Member with the preferences of more than 50% of electors. None the less, the voluntary model of AV on offer here could increase the legitimacy of the electoral process.

Pete Wishart: Is not even to call this a mouse of a proposal to give a mouse a bad name? It is like Mr and Mrs Mouse got together and had a huge litter of children-and this AV proposal is the runt of that litter.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman was, I am sure, in the House when the then MP for Cambridge referred to it as a "jemmy in the door". I am not sure what the current intentions or aspirations of the Liberal Democrats are-survival might be one of them-but it is just a nasty piece of work, because we are not sure what they stand for or what the end goal is. But that is what we have, and sometimes the best can be the enemy of the good. We are where we are.
	Others, of course, favour retaining the existing, first-past-the-post system, believing it a more straightforward method of voting that is more likely to avoid hung Parliaments and unstable Governments. I respect those views. Such differences of opinion are as evident in the Labour party as they are anywhere else-I hasten to add that some of my best friends hold that view. Yet although many of my colleagues are divided on the merits of different electoral systems, we are united in our belief that we should have a public debate about whether to move to AV, and that the voters should be given the final choice in a referendum. Although we support such a referendum, we share the concerns that many have voiced about precisely what the best time to hold it is. We believe that there is a serious concern about whether it is wise to combine such a referendum with the elections on 5 May 2011, as clause 1 proposes.
	If passed, the Bill will change the way we choose Members of our elected House of Commons, change the size of the House of Commons, change our boundaries and change the way we do politics for at least a generation. Let us compare and contrast the haste with which that is being done-something on which there is a genuine difference of view, and not just between political parties, but within them-with House of Lords reform. I am not being critical of the groundwork being done on House of Lords reforms. All parties and most MPs agree on the need to reform the House of Lords. However, this coalition Government have established a Joint Committee, which is currently meeting and chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, with a draft Bill to be published before the end of this year. The draft Bill will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee over several months, and a Bill will be formally presented to Parliament, with, I am sure, a lengthy Second Reading debate, followed by a Committee stage and so on. Why is House of Lords reform treated with such care, attention and detail, yet House of Commons reforms is treated with undue haste and contempt?

Anne McGuire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is strange that a parallel piece of legislation is effectively extending the length of this Parliament to five years, yet we have an unseemly rush towards a referendum that, frankly, could be held at any time over the next three or four years of this Parliament? Does he have any clue as to the psychology of the coalition Government in rushing for a referendum next May?

Sadiq Khan: The reason there has been a push for changing the voting system and for MPs being encouraged to try to secure more than half of the electorate is that trust and confidence had been broken by expenses and all the rest of it. The irony is that this shabby deal that the coalition Government have agreed-a fixed-term Parliament, rushing through a referendum on 5 May 2011, the boundary changes, and all the other things-is breaking the trust and confidence that we have been trying to build over the past few weeks and months, yet they do so at their peril. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) referred to his theories, but nobody has yet given the reason why 5 May 2011 should be the date of the referendum. If it is the case that the next election should be fought with 600 seats rather than 650, and with different boundaries-I accept that some hon. Members on the Government Benches hold this view-that can still be achieved, but by having a referendum later than 5 May 2011. What is the reason for the rush?

Richard Fuller: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that it is somewhat hubristic for Labour Members to talk about the timing of referendums, when we are still waiting for the referendum that they promised when they were in office on European reform? I do not know whether he is a good judge of the timing of referendums, as last time he did not put that referendum in place at all.

Sadiq Khan: I am happy to take as many interventions as possible, but the hon. Gentleman has to grow up. Just grow up: we are having a proper debate about clause 1. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) said, this is really the old politics. Let us debate the merits of clause 1.

Stewart Jackson: I hope that we can introduce some civility into this debate. The shadow Minister really should raise the level of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) raised a valid point: it ill behoves the right hon. Gentleman to lecture us on referendums on far-reaching constitutional issues when his party not only reneged on a solemn promise made at the ballot box to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, but guillotined the relevant Bill, forcing it through this House.

Sadiq Khan: I am happy to compare the record of Labour Governments on having referendums and making constitutional changes-changes with agreement and proper pre-legislative scrutiny-with that of this coalition Government or any previous Conservative Government.

James Gray: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the timing of the important referendum on Scottish independence, which actually occurred before the Bill had passed through this House?

Sadiq Khan: One of the important things that the hon. Gentleman has to understand and accept is that one reason why a change in the voting system has been recommended is so that we can win back the trust and confidence of the British people. It ill behoves him to try to do that by harking back to precedents that I am afraid did not win the trust and confidence of the British people, but led to bigger problems than they solved.

Anne McGuire: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend was not in the House at that time, so perhaps I could remind him that the constitutional issue that was put before the Scottish and Welsh people arose as a result of a cross-party consensus that that referendum should be held. There was not a unilateral decision on the date; there was an agreement on how we would move things forward, so that we could ascertain the views of the Scottish and Welsh people. That case is therefore a good example of cross-party co-operation on constitutional issues.

Jimmy Hood: Order. If we are going to have interventions, can I ask that they be a bit shorter than that? Also, I am hearing noises from hon. Members to the side of me, which is inappropriate. I would ask right hon. and hon. Members not to chunter when an hon. Member is making a speech.

Sadiq Khan: My right hon. Friend makes a good point, but there is an even better point, which is that the issue was in our manifesto, which the British people voted on, rather than in an agreement reached after five days of haggling. There is a big difference between the two. The obvious question is: why the rush for 5 May 2011? We look forward to receiving the answer from the Parliamentary Secretary.

Ian Davidson: As someone who has form on supporting referendums, not only in the case of Maastricht, but on the constitution, I am in favour of the referendum that we are discussing now. However, to answer my right hon. Friend's question about the timing, it is because a shabby deal has been done. In return for supporting Tory cuts, the Liberals get a reward. That is what this is about. It is very much the old politics, and that is why so many people will argue that crime should not pay, that the Liberals should be punished and that everybody should vote against AV in a referendum.

Sadiq Khan: What are the reasons for the coalition Government combining the referendum with the other elections taking place next May? One reason, as described by the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) in an intervention on the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, is that voters would be too fatigued to go to the polls twice in a year. That reason is a pretty feeble justification for choosing May 2011. If the coalition Government and the Deputy Prime Minister believe, as I do, that electoral reform is a fundamental constitutional issue and that the public genuinely want the opportunity to vote for change, we should all have the confidence to believe that voters would be willing to cast a vote in more than one ballot in a year.

Eleanor Laing: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House ought to pay attention to the Gould report? That report was compiled at the behest of the previous Government, after the mess of the 2007 elections in Scotland, when there were various elections on the same day. Gould concluded that one
	"problem with combining these elections has to do with the confusion it creates among the electorate,"
	adding that
	"it is clear that some voters were confused by the combined elections".
	The Deputy Prime Minister says that that is patronising, but surely no one could suggest that only the voters of Scotland will be confused. If voters are confused, voters are confused.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Lady makes a good point. I shall come to Ron Gould and his report in a moment, but she is right to say that he was not being patronising, but recognising a real issue.

Mark Williams: Just to exemplify the point, will the right hon. Gentleman consider Wales and the spectre of three elections being held there? We waited a long time for our referendum date from the previous Government, but it did not come. Now, under this Government, we are finally getting it. There is a prospect of three elections in Wales-the National Assembly referendum, the Assembly elections, and the AV referendum. What effect does he believe that will have on turnout, and does it not necessitate that at least one of those elections be held on the same day?

Sadiq Khan: The best that I can do for the hon. Gentleman is to quote from the evidence that the excellent Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform received, which said:
	"There should be no distraction from the national assembly election. That is why we have agreed with other parties in the Assembly that our own referendum should not be held on the same day as the Assembly elections."
	The important point is that for very good reasons the Assembly has decided not to have its referendum on the same day as the election, because it does not want to blur the issues. It would be counter-productive for there to be three, or two, elections in the early part of 2011; it would be confusing and blur the issues.

Hywel Williams: I rise to agree and to make exactly the same point. I disagree with the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams): if the fatigue argument carries any weight, the Welsh electorate will already be fatigued, as we have our own referendum on 3 March, which is a very strong argument for having the other referendum on some other date.

Sadiq Khan: Another explanation for combining the referendum with the elections on 5 May is that it would save costs, and that justification is persuasive. However, there is a problem with that argument as well. The great reformer, the Deputy Prime Minister, would sound a little more convincing on that issue if he had demonstrated some consistency in the past. Last year, when there was a clamour from electoral reformists for a referendum on AV to be held on the same day as the general election, he was passionately opposed to it. The same money that the coalition Government are keen to save next May could have been saved this May, had the referendum been held on the same day as the general election, which would have meant a potential turnout of not 84% but 100%.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does he agree that if the cost to the taxpayer-the public purse-at this very difficult economic time were really uppermost in the mind of the Deputy Prime Minister, we would not be having a referendum at all?

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Lady makes a good point with which many colleagues agree, but I shall move on.
	In my view, the Deputy Prime Minister had good reasons for opposing the combination. He worried that holding a referendum on electoral reform on the same day as the general election would cloud the debate and affect the outcome, making a yes vote less likely; he was right. He instead supported our proposals for a referendum after the election, but within approximately 18 months of the legislation gaining Royal Assent, which meant that the most likely date would have been October 2011. That course of action would not have delivered the savings that that combination with a general election would have provided, but, given the importance of the decision in question, it was a fairer and more constitutional way of proceeding. That was his view back then, but we know that it has changed.

Tom Harris: For clarification, will my right hon. Friend make something absolutely clear? When the Deputy Prime Minister opposed having a referendum on the alternative vote on the same day as the general election, was that before or after he was given a ministerial salary, a ministerial car, a ministerial private office and the accompanying prestige?

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend has made his point.
	I hope that all Members, whether for or against a change from the first-past-the-post system to the alternative vote, agree that if we hold a referendum on the voting system, it is imperative that that referendum is transparent, clear and understandable to the British people and that the result is invulnerable to any charges of illegitimacy. I fear that the timetable for the referendum proposed by the Bill will fail on each of those counts. So I urge coalition Front Benchers to listen to the concerns being articulated by people of all political persuasions about the dangers of a clash between the referendum and local and national elections, which, as we must not forget, are due to take place in some places but not in others.
	In Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, numerous warnings have now been given about the danger of combining the referendum with elections to the various devolved institutions. Those warnings have highlighted that holding simultaneous polls risks confusing voters and muddying political debate. That is not a patronising view from Westminster politicians; it is the view of the devolved Executives. In Scotland especially, there is, as has been said, concern about the unhappy experience of coupled elections in 2007, which gave rise to significant numbers of spoiled ballot papers, and that experience could be repeated. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) referred to Ron Gould, who recommended against combining polls.

David Winnick: If there were overwhelming public pressure for a change in the voting system, one could understand the reason for holding the referendum as soon as possible. How many letters has my right hon. Friend received from constituents recommending any change?

Sadiq Khan: To be fair to the coalition Government, if one believes in reforming the constitution, the only criterion cannot be how full one's mailbag or computer inbox is. I accept that sometimes one has to lead the debate, even if the public are not quite there. My problem is this: accepting my hon. Friend's premise for a second, if the public are not clamouring for a change in the voting system, one would assume that the coalition Government, and the partner in that coalition that wants the change the most, would want more time to build up momentum and create a snowball effect, to provide more education on the process and to achieve a yes vote. The fact that they have not done so raises more questions than answers.

Thomas Docherty: The point was made before about spoiled ballot papers. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there were 147,000 spoiled ballot papers in the Scottish elections in 2007?

Sadiq Khan: What compounds that excellent intervention is that just today, the Liberal Democrat MSP for Dunfermline West, who was part of the committee that looked into the 2007 election, said:
	"I am determined that this confusion be avoided at all costs for next year's election to the Scottish Parliament. I am therefore very much against the inclusion of a referendum on the same day as the Scottish elections!"
	I have not found anyone so far-even the Deputy Prime Minister, who is not here today-who is in favour of coupling the two events. This is not about whether the British public can cope with one or two issues at a time; it is about ensuring that the issues are properly aired.
	The problems do not stop there. If the referendum is combined with the other poll, there will be complications regarding the funding limits for political parties and for the referendum campaigns. To compound matters, an additional concern has been raised about the problem of differential turnout, given that some parts of the country-notably London-have no separate elections in May 2011. That makes live the issue of thresholds, which otherwise would not be an issue in the referendum.
	Some argue that one of the virtues of combining the referendum with other polls is the likelihood of an increased turnout, but the logic of that argument works both ways, in that there could be lower turnouts where no elections are taking place on the same day. Do we really want to have debates on the legitimacy of the referendum after the event? I hope that hon. Members who have tabled amendments will ensure that there is a proper debate on that theme and that other hon. Members have listened to the issues that have been raised. Depending on what happens later this evening, I might decide not to press our amendment to a vote.
	Concern has been expressed that 3.5 million eligible voters are not on the register. Rushing to have the referendum in less than seven months' time reduces the chance of those people getting on the register and taking part. That is yet another reason why we say, "Decouple the referendum from 5 May, allow further time for the work to be carried out, and allow-for those of us who are progressives and want to see a change in the voting system-a real coalition, rather than the shabby deal done by this coalition Government behind closed doors over those five or six days".

Edward Leigh: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). I pretty well agreed with everything that he said in his excellent speech, but I wonder whether he might have been giving a slightly different speech today if the Labour party had won 10 more seats and there had been a Lib-Lab Government. However, we will never know-the past is another country. We are where we are, and we have to look at the situation that we have. I am tempted just to adopt the arguments given by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who made a first-rate speech, but there is a danger that we might complicate matters.
	There are clearly a lot of political calculations going on, and I do not really know why this is such a macho issue for the Government, or why everything is being rolled out to win the vote tonight, as the Government undoubtedly will. I am not sure why the Deputy Prime Minister is so keen for the referendum to be on the same day as other elections. I suspect that there was a political calculation in the beginning. We can dismiss the argument that the reason why the Deputy Prime Minister wants to have the referendum on the same day is that he wants to save money. We can accept that that is a canard, as it was not his primary motivation. After all, the cost of a general election is some £80 million, and there is no doubt that if an AV system were introduced, that cost would rise steeply, as enormous costs would be tied up in the whole process of redistribution and cutting the number of seats. It simply does not wash that the primary motivation for having the referendum on the same day is the cost. There must have been some political reason, and I presume that that reason was that the Deputy Prime Minister thought that he would have more chance of winning the AV referendum if it were held on the same day.
	For me, however, that is not the primary issue. Some people might think that I support my hon. Friends, the nationalist amendment or what was said by the right hon. Member for Tooting because I have calculated that if the referendum were held on a different day, I would be more likely to win-or, in other words, that people like me would be more likely to defeat AV-but that is not the issue. The issue concerns what is right. The issue is not whether people support or oppose AV, but that on a matter of major constitutional change, the argument must be out in the open.
	For better or worse, this country has had a first-past-the-post system for many generations, and it has ensured that we are the only country in Europe that has never been a police state or had a police state imposed on us. It has ensured that this has generally been a freedom-loving and democratic nation, yet we are changing all that. The issue is so important that, irrespective of whether people are for or against AV or proportional representation, the arguments must be properly aired.

Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I wonder whether he noticed the curious item in yesterday's  The Times, which suggested that certain Conservative Members were no longer going to support amendments such as his, because calculations had been done by the chief executive of the NO2AV campaign that having the referendum on the same day might actually assist the no vote. I assure whoever made those calculations that I would be just as determined to vote against having the referendum on the same day if I believed that it would advantage the no campaign as I would if I thought that it would advantage the yes campaign.

Edward Leigh: Exactly.
	There was a meeting yesterday-perhaps I am giving away what was discussed in a private meeting, but so what, as it adds interest to the debate-and someone from the no campaign came along and said, "Well, we have done all our calculations and we think that we are now perhaps more likely to win if the referendum is on the same day because the C2 vote is likely to be in our favour"-but who cares? Stuff these sorts of arguments. When we pressed this man, he was not able to adduce any firm evidence one way or the other. The fact is that nobody knows whether their side of the argument is more likely to win on 5 May or 2 June or whatever.
	Surely what is important is that the arguments around AV are complex. I know that you would immediately rule me out of order, Mr Hood, if I started rehearsing all the arguments in favour of or against AV. I am sure that the Committee accepts, however, that at first sight the issue looks quite easy. It might be said, "Well, we have this first-past-the-post system, which is clearly not proportional and seems unfair to one party, the Liberal party, which gets many more votes nationally than can be justified by the number of seats it gets in this House, so we should have a fairer system." At first sight, then, someone might think, "Well, I am a progressive and fair person"-actually, the Committee might not agree that I am a progressive and fair person, but I can be if I try, as I do occasionally, to behave myself-"and should accept the change." Looking at the issue in more detail, however, it gets more difficult.
	A document from the Library details how an individual election might pan out, which might lead us all to start scratching our heads. Do we all know that the Government's favoured option is for "optional preferential voting"? How many members of the public have got their heads around "optional preferential voting"? Indeed, how many Members in their places in Committee now-apart from the lone Liberal or couple of Liberals, whom we know to be anoraks-understand it? We all know, of course, that the optional preferential voting system is an AV system that does not require the voter to give preferences for every candidate, but there are other AV systems, and those arguments have to be teased out. Would it be fairer to force people to vote for every candidate? Would it be fairer to have the system used in the London mayoral elections, where one or two candidates are voted for? Or should we vote for the system that the Government are proposing? As we can start to see, the issues are complicated. Should we not therefore have a chance to tease out these issues over three or four weeks, given that we are changing the entire way of voting for the House of Commons?

Julian Lewis: Or hopefully not.

Edward Leigh: Or hopefully not changing it, as my hon. Friend has said.
	It does not necessarily help the argument to question what happens in Australia, Finland or the USA. It is what happens here that is important, because we care about this place and we want to create our own system, which we want to be discussed and understood by the public. We also want to make a judgment that will be considered fair.

Thomas Docherty: I have just returned from the British-American parliamentary group visit to the US, with colleagues from all parties.  [Interruption.] It is an excellent place to visit and regards were sent to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who was on last year's trip. It might help the Committee to know that millions and millions of dollars are spent on each individual question put forward. Given that we rightly have restrictions on how much each side can spend, does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is one more reason why it should be a stand-alone vote?

Edward Leigh: That is a very good point and the hon. Gentleman referred earlier to another one about the number of spoiled ballot papers in the Scottish elections. If I were a Scottish MP, I would be angry about what is going on. We in this national Parliament are hijacking their election, when a very large amount of what is now decided for Scotland is decided by the Scottish Parliament. If I were a Scottish person, I would be angry, given that there is this concentration of media interest and writing in London, where no election at all is taking place, and the entire media will be focused on the AV issue. That would detract from the attention that should be paid to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

William McCrea: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has remembered that Northern Ireland has two elections set for the month of May-the local government elections and the Assembly elections. One Government supporter said a few moments ago, "Well, one of those can be set aside." That is arrogance. Those elections are already set, and it is important that we can carry on with our democratic process.

Edward Leigh: There has not yet been enough debate today about Northern Ireland-or, indeed, about Wales-but the arguments are all the same. The fact is that 39 million people will vote on the first Thursday of May in the parliamentary elections, the Assembly elections and local elections. I repeat that 39 million people will be involved. Why should those important elections, which are crucial to the regions and nations of our country, be subsumed into this referendum?
	It is incumbent on the Government to provide an argument. They should not try to pull the wool over our eyes about money. This is not about money; it is about something else. There are many other and better ways of doing this. The Government should listen to the arguments adduced in Committee, which are overwhelming. The overwhelming argument is that we should debate the issue calmly and sensibly, that the argument should be rolled out and that the people can make the decision. Let right be done; let us have a referendum on a different day.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to amendment 1, tabled by me and some 40 other Opposition Members representing all four nations of the United Kingdom. I am conscious that many Members wish to speak and that time is, thanks to the programming, restricted. I will therefore restrict my remarks to two aspects of the amendment: why we tabled it, and why the date of 8 September 2011 was chosen.

Ian Davidson: Is my hon. Friend aware that 8 September is my birthday? On the last such occasion the Government promised me two aircraft carriers, and I look forward to the upholding of that promise.

Thomas Docherty: I greatly appreciate my hon. Friend's contribution. Yet again, he has managed to introduce an issue that is important to people in both our constituencies.
	Let me stress that amendment 1 is not a wrecking amendment, although some members of the Government may wish to portray it as such. It is supported by Members on both sides of the argument about the alternative vote. It is not intended to, nor will it, lead to the killing of the AV referendum; it merely seeks to create a level and fair playing field for the referendum, and to demonstrate the respect that the House should have for the devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom.
	As Members will know, it is rare for an issue to unite Labour and Scottish National party politicians, and rarer still for them to be joined by Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues. However, that is the feat that the Deputy Prime Minister has managed to achieve, and I am grateful for his ability to bring us all together in that spirit. The amendment seeks to address the genuine anger that is felt in the three devolved Administrations. The fact that a joint letter has been sent by the three First Ministers to the Deputy Prime Minister expressing that anger should not be forgotten.

Stewart Jackson: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument. He clearly concedes that the electoral arrangements and voting systems which may change in future will apply to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Will he also concede that there is a precedent for the Government's legislation? In 1998 there was a referendum on future constitutional arrangements and the establishment of the greater London Authority and the Mayor, at the same time as the holding of 32 separate London borough elections.

Thomas Docherty: According to my recollection, all 32 London boroughs held elections on the same day. Regrettably, on 5 May next year elections will not be held in the whole United Kingdom. I believe that there will be no elections in some 20% of England.
	I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reinforcing my point about the level and fair playing field. Given that he has just made my argument for me, I look forward to him joining us in the Lobby.

Susan Elan Jones: For the benefit of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), could my hon. Friend explain the difference between local government elections in London and elections for the National Assembly of Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly? It is obvious that a definition that is fairly clear to most of us has not travelled as far as certain green Benches.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that excellent point. I cannot go into great deal in the short time available to me, but I can point out that-as I am sure my hon. Friend already knows, and as Members in all parts of the Committee have mentioned-there have been very different turnouts. Elections to the Scottish Parliament have typically attracted a turnout of about 50%. I fear that, important as local government issues are to the parts of England involved, the turnout for those elections will be nowhere near that-which, again, reinforces my argument about the level playing field.

Stewart Jackson: I am happy to take lessons from the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). Having been a London borough councillor for eight years, I am sure that we can discuss our knowledge and experience of various elected bodies. However, I must disabuse the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) of his belief that I was making his point for him. The point that I was making was that the people of London were quite able to make decisions in respect of the election of London borough councillors and long-term constitutional decisions, by way of a referendum, on the same day. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman is avoiding.

Thomas Docherty: As I am sure my nationalist colleagues will remind me, I should be nervous about making the mistake of, perhaps inadvertently, comparing the Scottish Parliament to a parish council. I urge the hon. Gentleman, as part of the respect agenda, to tread carefully when making analogies between borough councils and the Scottish Parliament.

Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend agree that to suggest that holding elections and a referendum on the same day is confusing constitutes not a condemnation of the electorate, but simply a recognition that we need to have a debate on such an important issue? The very fact of elections to the National Assembly for Wales, or to the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, takes us away from the central need to have an in-depth argument about the pros and cons of the AV system.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point more eloquently than I could have done. I suspect that that is why he is an important member of our Front-Bench team and I am a mere Back Bencher, languishing and fighting my corner for aircraft carriers and others.
	Let me now make a small amount of progress. I do not intend to rehearse, or rehash, the arguments presented so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) or, indeed, Members on the other side of the Committee. They have already highlighted more than adequately the problems that occurred in 2007, particularly in Scotland, where 147,000 ballot papers were spoilt. I would, however, like to draw the Committee's attention to some of the representations made by a number of individuals and organisations to the Scottish Affairs Committee-led by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson)-which, unlike the Deputy Prime Minister, actually bothered to ask for input on the date of the referendum from the people of Scotland.
	Let us consider first the response of the Scottish Government, an august body to which we should all accord some respect. Scottish Ministers wrote:
	"The Scottish Government believes that the lack of consultation, and the substantive decision to hold UK wide contests on the same day as devolved elections, shows a lack of respect for the devolved administrations. We also believe that it undermines the integrity of elections to the Scottish Parliament and risks voter confusion. Elections to the Scottish Parliament are important to the people of Scotland and we believe they have the right to make their electoral choices without the distraction of a parallel UK contest. Holding separate contests on one day would also create operational and practical risks for those charged with administering the elections."
	As Members have already pointed out, it is not just the SNP Scottish Government who want the date changed. My current Liberal Democrat MSP-I suspect that he may not still be my MSP after May-wrote on behalf of his party that he was
	"very much against the inclusion of a referendum on the same day as the Scottish elections".
	He put an exclamation mark at the end, which I consider particularly important.
	Just in case the Deputy Prime Minister believes that the opinions of other politicians should not be given the same weight as his weighty opinion, the Minister may wish to reflect on the comments of the interim chief returning officer for Scotland, Mr Tom Aitchison, who has said:
	"Combining the polls will require additional staffing at polling stations and additional ballot boxes. This appears to be a straightforward matter, but there is much scope for confusion and misallocation of ballot papers. Simply sourcing and procuring sufficient ballot boxes is also a matter that is concerning the electoral community."
	Mr Aitchison went on to say:
	"with three ballot boxes from each polling station (two for the Parliamentary election and one for the referendum) there is likely to be a situation in which each box must be sifted and possibly verified before any of the three counts can commence. This will require an investment in time, space and staffing adding to the cost"
	-which, apparently, so concerns those on the Front Bench-
	"complexity and duration of the count. Stakeholders, including politicians and voters, need to understand that the process may take longer that they might anticipate and may certainly be more expensive. Many Returning Officers may find it necessary to hire larger venues for the count and indeed to hire them for an extended period to accommodate these additional processes."
	So much for the Deputy Prime Minister's argument about cost.
	Some Members on the other side of the Committee have suggested that the Scottish parliamentary elections could be shifted by as little as a month, but there are two serious flaws in that suggestion. First, as Members on both sides of the Committee will recall, in 1999 the European elections took place just one month after the Scottish elections. Turnout for the European elections in Scotland was a mere 26%. That, surely, is something that no one would wish to repeat. Secondly, if saving money is genuinely the argument that the Deputy Prime Minister wishes to deploy, this suggestion of shifting the election and all the associated costs fatally undermines his own logic.

Eleanor Laing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us in this House actually have some respect for the Scottish Parliament-I did not always, Mr Hood-and, indeed, for the Welsh Assembly? That Parliament has a fixed date for an election, and the idea that it should move that in order to accommodate an ad hoc, once in a lifetime-once in a century, we hope-referendum is utterly preposterous. Those of us who have respect for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people therefore have every sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind words about the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly- [Interruption]-and the Northern Ireland Assembly as well; I was coming to that. Like many good things, the Parliament can take time to grow on people, but I think she will find that the Scottish Government and Parliament is an institution well worth protecting, as are those of Wales and Northern Ireland.

Hywel Williams: Clearly, the cost argument is blown out of the water in Wales as we are to have a separate referendum. We are going to spend money so that we have a separate referendum on 3 March. That gives the lie to the cost argument.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful for that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) is present and he has usefully highlighted the fact that in the last three months the Deputy Prime Minister's own costs have risen from £80 million to £100 million-a sign of inflation going mad within the coalition.
	The second reason for suggesting an alternative date is in order to ensure that there is the fairest possible ballot. As I mentioned in response to an earlier intervention, not all parts of the United Kingdom will be holding elections on 5 May 2011. Large swathes of England have no elections scheduled. Recent history shows that in such circumstances turnout in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish elections is significantly higher than in places in England that are holding purely local government or mayoral elections. If the referendum is held on the same day therefore, we will not be starting from a level and equal playing field in respect of participation. I and many others believe that, in effect, those who propose the referendum in this way are hoping to rig the methodology in their favour.

Edward Leigh: I think that one of the Deputy Prime Minister's calculations was that there would be a differential turnout. He calculated that there would be a greater turnout in Scotland, as people are used to AV there, so they would be more likely to vote in favour. That argument might hit him in the back of the neck, however.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Given the current Liberal Democrat poll ratings, however, I look forward to them receiving a round thumping in May, both in my area and across Scotland. The Deputy Prime Minister is so out of touch with Scotland that he is not aware of just how unpopular he has become in the past five months. The hon. Gentleman's point about the Deputy Prime Minister's logic does stand, however.
	There are a number of specific reasons why we have chosen 8 September 2011. First, that would allow us sufficient time to overcome the voter fatigue that I touched upon. It would also provide for several months of campaigning by those of all parties in a non-party political manner. Those colleagues who wish to campaign for a yes vote can come together without party badges and work for that, and those colleagues who wish to campaign for a no vote can also come together without the baggage of our party affiliations.
	We also appreciate that there are other elections scheduled for spring 2012, spring 2013 and spring 2014, and we believe that it is important to be consistent and logical in our approach, which rules out those slots. We have therefore sought to find a date that provides sufficient breathing space between all those elections. We are also mindful of the advantages of good weather in ensuring strong voter turnout, and the clocks have not yet changed in September-although I accept that a private Member's Bill that might deal with that is coming up in December. That issue needs to be balanced against the argument about clashing with school holidays; we have had many discussions about that in the Chamber. As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) mentioned, having the referendum in September of next year would also provide ample opportunity for the six-month period of grace for the Electoral Commission to carry out its due diligence. Finally on the argument for September, as has been mentioned, in 1997 we held two referendums in September in Scotland and Wales, very successfully with excellent turnout and a seamless process. That followed, in particular, a constitutional convention in Scotland, in which I know you played an active role, Mr Hood.
	The Deputy Prime Minister claims that the idea of fair votes is what motivates the referendum, but it now appears that, shamefully, the Liberal Democrats in government will act unfairly in order to try to achieve their ends. It is not too late for the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government to do the right thing: to listen to the united voice of Labour, nationalist and Unionist politicians across the United Kingdom and accept the rational and fair date for the referendum.

Eleanor Laing: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty); he made some excellent points, and I hope the House will pay attention to them.
	I accept that we must have a referendum. I voted for this Bill on Second Reading, and I will vote for it again on Third Reading and subsequently. A referendum is the price we pay for the coalition, and the coalition is the price we pay for economic stability, which is what the country needs most at the moment. However, it is not for this House to submit to the dictatorship of the coalition agreement and to accept every word therein as being inscribed on tablets of stone. It is for this House to exercise its duty to seek to improve the legislation before it.
	I shall speak mainly in support of amendment 4, to which I have put my name, but other amendments in the group are similar in principle, so I also accept the arguments for them. I am not, however, saying I could possibly bring myself to vote with the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). I congratulate him on his appointment to his new position on the Front Bench, and I look forward to our having many arguments in future. Tonight, we have been very much in agreement, but I know that he will understand that I could not bring myself to vote for his proposals. However, I have listened to his arguments and, as with those of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, the House ought to take heed of them, because this is all about principle, not party advantage.
	There are arguments that if we have a referendum on the same day as other elections turnout will be higher and people will be more likely to vote for AV. There are other arguments that people will be more likely to vote against AV. There are arguments about why AV might be good, too-although there are not many arguments that AV would be good for anyone apart from the Liberal Democrats. There are, however, also arguments about why any particular party might be at an advantage or a disadvantage in respect of AV as a whole, but none of us can predict that. We can look at the statistics and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) so eloquently explained a short while ago, we can look at the party advantage, but this is not about party advantage: it is a simple matter of principle.
	A democratic procedure that changes our country's constitution must be fair and be seen to be fair. If the result of a referendum on changing our voting system does not command the respect it should, every subsequent general election, based on whichever system is chosen under that referendum, will be open to question and challenge. There is no doubt that holding more than one election on the same day undermines confidence in the referendum, so the issue is simple: if this referendum is held on any day but 5 May 2011-or any day when another significant election is taking place-it will command more respect than if it is held on that day with other elections.
	I care about democracy. If we are having a referendum, I want it to be fair and to be seen to be fair. It is the duty of this House to protect democracy by ensuring that any referendum is fair. There are 365 days in every year, so plenty of other dates are available for us to hold a referendum that would be far fairer than one held on 5 May 2011. When I intervened on the right hon. Member for Tooting, I referred to the fact it is not valid to argue this matter on a point of economics and saving taxpayers' money. Undoubtedly, it will cost less to hold a referendum on the same day as other elections, but are we going to say in this House that what we want is a cut-price referendum and, thus, cut-price democracy? That is not fair to anyone, but there is another overriding argument. If the Deputy Prime Minister's overriding concern was really cost and where the £100 million cost of this referendum could be spent elsewhere for the good of the British people, there would be no referendum. So we have to examine this as a matter of principle.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex set out some excellent arguments, which I shall not repeat, given the time available. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) also made some excellent points, with which I agree. He is right to stand up for what happens in Scotland and for the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and their elected Parliament and Assemblies, as they are being denigrated by the way in which the Government have put together the plans for this referendum.
	This is a matter of principle, and the first duty of this House is to make sure that the workings of our democracy are protected. A referendum must be fair and it must command respect. Listening to the arguments here this evening, and to those in the media, among think tanks and on both sides of the AV campaign, makes me increasingly sure that holding this referendum on the same day as other significant elections will mean that it is seen to have a result that is not fair. I have never found myself in a position where I might vote differently from the leadership of my party, but the leadership of my party has never been represented by a Liberal Democrat.

Sadiq Khan: Does the hon. Lady think that one of the reasons the Deputy Prime Minister is not here is that Conservatives might support clause 1 if he is not here to make the argument?

Eleanor Laing: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but it is not for me to second-guess the Deputy Prime Minister. I merely disagree with him on this matter, and do not have any lack of respect for the other duties he is undertaking.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Lady might recall that earlier this year the Deputy Prime Minister told the House that this measure was not going to be a deal breaker. Any Conservatives labouring under the misapprehension that he will take his ball and sulk if he does not get his way will know that this will not bring down the coalition, however much Labour Members wish that day to come soon.

Eleanor Laing: I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I recall very well, as I am sure the House does, what the Deputy Prime Minister said when he was answering that very question at the Dispatch Box. The Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely right to expect that there will be a referendum-there will be one-but its terms and the date on which it is held are a different matter. I wish to protect him from the position in which he finds himself, because I am sure that he would also wish this referendum to be fair and to be seen to be fair. If he were here to listen to these arguments, he might change his mind and decide that in order to have a fair referendum it would be better to hold it on a date other than 5 May 2011.

Stuart Bell: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her speech, which is holding the attention of the Committee and, like the best speeches, comes from the heart. May I suggest, by way of gentle persuasion, that instead of saying that she might vote against her Government, she say that she will do so?

Eleanor Laing: Of course the hon. Gentleman may suggest that to me, and I am examining my conscience carefully in that respect. I have a lot of respect for him and he is doing well in persuading me. I am sure that he would be the first, among most Members in the Chamber this evening, to agree with me that our first loyalty must be not to our party, but to this House, to the democratic process and to the workings of our democracy, which have made ours the strong, great and fair country that it is. Our first loyalty must be to this Parliament, which has exported its fair and decent way of doing things and spread democracy around the world.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Lady mentions democracy and her point is spot on. How dare this mouse of a measure-this splinter of a suggestion-get in the way of the clear choice of the Scottish people? Surely that is a democratic outrage. We should have a free and fair election to decide who will be the Scottish Government, not this nonsense that is in the way, muddying the water.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. As I have said, I, like most Members of this House, have every respect for the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people and their right to fair democracy and fair elections. That is why I reiterate that our first loyalty has to be to the democratic process, which makes this House and our participation in it what it is, and which makes us the representatives of people who have fairly and properly elected us to this place. We do not have cut-price democracy; we do not have elections that are not properly run. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of having a referendum, which is likely to change our constitution, run in a way that is not seen to be fair. Clearly, there is an enormous number of other dates on which this referendum could be held. Therefore, in order for it to be fair and to be seen to be fair, and for it to command the respect that we need it to command in order to protect our democracy, which gives us the authority to sit in this House of Commons, it must be held on a different day from 5 May 2011.

Naomi Long: The Alliance party would generally support reform of the voting system, with the reservation that the Bill is about changing to AV proportionality, rather than full single transferrable vote proportionality, which would be our preference. However, we have significant reservations about the date proposed for the referendum.
	In Northern Ireland, 5 May 2011 is already set in legislation as the date of the Northern Ireland Assembly elections, and it is also the date for the local government elections, so two elections are already taking place on that day. The review of public administration in Northern Ireland has led to the date of the local government elections being changed once already, and the Secretary of State recently indicated to us that any question mark hanging over 5 May as the date of local government elections has pretty much been removed, so it is now almost a certainty that both elections will be held on 5 May.
	I can understand the argument that some may put that having the referendum at the same time as other elections will increase voter participation, but I disagree; while turnout may be increased in parts of the country where there are other elections on the same day, participation is not the same as turnout. The question is the degree to which members of the public and voters are able to engage on the subject matter of the election, and not simply whether they are able to turn out and vote. Participation will be interfered with if three elections are run at the same time.
	Having adequate time and space for a public debate about constitutional change is hugely important. Debate on the substance of the proposed changes will be interfered with if, on the same day, we run the Northern Ireland Assembly elections, which are hugely important to the people in Northern Ireland, and local government elections, which have an enormous impact on people's daily lives.
	There has been some debate about which election would overshadow which. I believe that in Northern Ireland there will be little appetite for a debate on the referendum. People and, to a greater extent, politicians will be more concerned about the substance of elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly and to local government. However, even if the reverse proved true, it would not be good for democracy. The elections and the referendum should be separated, so that people can give their full attention to the substantive issues that are up for debate.
	In addition to the issue of ensuring that people get the full opportunity to participate in debate, there are serious logistical issues, some of which have already been raised this evening. One that causes considerable concern is that if local government elections, regional Assembly elections and a referendum coincide, there will be not simply three different elections but potentially three different groups of valid electors turning up at polling stations to cast their votes-groups with different identification requirements.
	That may cause confusion among voters and those who have to administer the system on the day. It is likely to lead to congestion at polling stations, and to fairly serious disputes. There is precedent for that; we have had Westminster and local council elections on the same day, and found that some people were eligible to vote in one election and not the other, or that the information that they received about what is valid identification for one election did not hold true for the other. Our party has made significant representations to the Electoral Commission on that matter. If we confuse that situation by adding the complexities of a referendum, we are putting too much pressure on those who administer the system.
	There is also an issue to do with the suitability and flexibility of the polling stations. Much has been made of the economic benefit of having all the elections on the same day, but there are also potential costs. Some of the polling stations that we use would simply not be suitable for use in three very different elections. We would be required to have a much more complex arrangement to ensure that only those eligible to vote in each separate election could do so, and do so smoothly and without confusion.
	The media issue has already been well addressed. In the national media, the focus will undoubtedly be on the referendum, but in the local media the referendum will be entirely eclipsed by the local elections. That issue needs to be considered.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The hon. Lady will be aware that people who were born in the Republic of Ireland but who reside in Northern Ireland are eligible to vote in local and Assembly elections, but not in national parliamentary elections or a referendum. The same applies, of course, to migrant workers who come to Northern Ireland. Is that not a recipe for confusion on the day?

Naomi Long: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution, because all the evidence suggests that that is exactly the case. When we have had national and local elections on the same day, it has caused confusion about who could vote in which election. It has also caused distress when people have turned up expecting to be able to cast their vote but have found themselves unable to do so because they were not a qualified elector in that particular election. I agree with him entirely that that is an unnecessary confusion to visit on the staff who administer the elections and those who turn out to vote.
	I also want to raise the issue of campaign material, and I speak as someone who has experience of elections being held on the same day. I have listened very carefully to the representations made by Royal Mail about the complexities of delivering all the campaign material. If we have not just two local elections but a referendum on the same day, the need to deliver all the relevant election material to all the relevant people will place the people at Royal Mail under particular stress. The election material will be less likely to assist voters with their choice than to simply bury them under a deluge of information. I suspect that voters will not engage as fully with any of the elections, given the amount of material that they will receive daily for all three elections.

Jim Shannon: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is a logistical nightmare to have two elections and a referendum on one day? There might be three boxes when one goes to the polling station. In some polling stations, there will be 20 or 25 boxes for different electoral areas. Logistically, counting the votes will be a nightmare from beginning to end.

Naomi Long: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would go further: the problem is not just events on the day; accounting for expenditure on each of the three elections, and managing to keep that expenditure separate enough to satisfy electoral rules, will prove challenging during the campaign.
	I want to reiterate a point that has been raised about the opportunity for cross-party co-operation. Those who support electoral reform may want to form a yes campaign, and those who are opposed may want to form a no campaign. Their ability to do so is significantly inhibited if the local government and Assembly elections are on the same day as the referendum, because people will be in full party election mode in the run-up to the date. The effectiveness of any yes or no campaign in areas where there are other elections taking place at the same time will be significantly diminished.
	I support the moves being made to reform the electoral system, but the date should be reconsidered. I do not believe that 5 May is an appropriate date. I do not believe that there was significant consultation with regional Administrations about how having the referendum on that day would impact on their area. The issue should be thought through again to ensure that the fullest, frankest and most open debate can take place, and to ensure that when the electorate come to the ballot box, they are fully informed of why they are there.

Julian Lewis: As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) made clear, it is a very serious step to vote against the leadership of one's party for the first time. It will not come as a surprise to those in the Whip's Office to hear that I shall be doing that today, because I informed them in advance that that was the decision that I reached. In fairness to them, with their typical liberality, they have not sought to put any pressure on me to dissuade me.  [Interruption.] They genuinely have not.
	What I really regret is that I shall be voting in such a way when the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), is at the Dispatch Box. He smiled as he heard me mention his name. He, at least, is aware that I have had the pleasure of attending the weddings of only two hon. Members. One was Mr Speaker's and the other was my hon. Friend's, even before he was elected to this House. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will reach every bit as eminent a position as Mr Speaker, but I fear that it will not be on the strength of the arguments that we will hear from him today.
	The shadow Secretary of State said from the Dispatch Box that he was puzzled to learn that the Government were going for the option of holding the referendum on an important constitutional issue on the same day as party political elections. I am glad to see him re-entering the Chamber in time for me to assist him by answering the question that he put. There is a simple answer: it is because the Liberal Democrats insist on it. The Conservative party would not have dreamt of putting forward this ghastly proposal to substitute the alternative vote for first past the post in any other circumstance, and it is being jerked about by its coalition partner.

Ian Davidson: What the hon. Gentleman has just said is extremely important-if it is correct. He is saying that the AV referendum and the elections are being held on the same day at the behest of the Liberal Democrats. That is immensely helpful. It would be helpful to the Committee if he would make clear what evidence he has that the referendum is to be held on the same day as the elections solely at the insistence of the forces of darkness.

Julian Lewis: I have very good circumstantial evidence. If it were left to the Conservatives, they would not wish this issue to be on the agenda at all; it is part of the price for the formation of the coalition Government. Also, once it became clear that this bad idea of a coincidence of dates was to be implemented, it was said time and again in the press without contradiction-in a way, the hon. Gentleman anticipates the remainder of my speech-that the reason was to improve the possibility of a yes vote. As the Conservatives, from the leader of our party down, have been explicit that we want a no vote, it is hardly likely that they, albeit reluctantly putting forward the idea for a referendum in the first place for the sake of the coalition, would insist on holding it on the same date for the reason that it was likely to get the result that they apparently do not want. I say apparently because naturally I believe implicitly everything that the leadership of my party tells me, and therefore I am sure that it does not want us to change the voting system.

Ian Davidson: That was a yes, then. The elections and the referendum are being held on the same day solely at the insistence of the Liberal Democrats.

Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman knows that I much admire his tenacity, his persistence and especially his devotion to the aircraft carriers, which I share, but I have to tell him that, for some strange reason, the leader of the Liberal Democrats does not tend to take me into his confidence when it comes to his reasons on issues of this sort. All I have been able to give the hon. Gentleman is my judgment of the situation as I see it. It seems to me that the only logical explanation for insisting on the coincidence of dates is that it is believed that the fact that major elections will be going on in parts of the country where people are used to electoral systems other than first past the post makes it more likely that there will be a higher turnout in those areas and the people there will be more amenable to voting yes to a change in the electoral system. I am glad to see a number of hon. Members indicating their assent.

Thomas Docherty: There has been some speculation as to the whereabouts of the Deputy Prime Minister. He was spotted just a few moments ago walking past the Chamber. We can but hope that he will shortly join us to take part in this debate.

Julian Lewis: I would not bet the farm on it. One of the depressing aspects of the debate, being a touch more serious for a moment, is that we are debating the proposal only because it is a Lib Dem self-interested obsession. Liberal Democrat Members have not even had the guts to come here in any significant numbers to speak up for those policies on which they insist. They are the originators of this mischief, and they are now doing the Cheshire cat act and letting my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary have the sticky end of the wicket of trying to defend the indefensible.

Sadiq Khan: Some of us are advocates of AV and would campaign for a yes vote. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate how let down we feel that the actions of the Deputy Prime Minister make it difficult for us to coalesce a campaign and get support for a yes vote, because on the day of the referendum candidates will be standing on the Liberal Democrat ticket? That will make it very difficult for us to canvass in the days and weeks preceding the elections. It pains me to say this, because I was looking forward to working with the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) on other issues, but our ability to do so has been hindered by the way in which the Bill has been drafted and the proceedings on it have been conducted.

Julian Lewis: I shall give a slightly pragmatic answer. Frankly, as long as hon. Members on both sides of the House work for whatever reason one way or another to defeat such an unwelcome change in our electoral system, I for one shall be extremely happy.
	Liberal Democrats are not known for their consistency, and that was well illustrated by the shadow Secretary of State when he revealed something that I did not know: that the Deputy Prime Minister previously opposed in principle holding a referendum on the same day as a general election. At least there would be some sort of level playing field if a referendum were on the same day as a general election. What is so iniquitous about this proposal is that all sorts of elections will be held on the same day in different parts of the country using different systems; and in some parts of the country no elections will be held at all. That is unfair and discreditable. I believe that the idea of the differential turnout was part and parcel of the scheme for proposing the coincidence of dates because it was believed that it would help achieve a yes vote.
	We had a lively exchange earlier about whether the coincidence of dates would help the yes vote or the no vote, but the most important thing is not that it might help one side or the other. The important thing is that, if an issue is vital enough that it deserves a referendum, it is essential that that referendum should not be adulterated by party political cross-cutting issues on the same day.
	One reason why political coalitions in peacetime generally do not have good reputations is their propensity to do dodgy deals behind closed doors. This proposal is the outcome of such a deal. It is intellectually and morally indefensible. It will not be a pleasure to vote for the first time today against my party leadership on an issue of principle. I hope that I will not be wasting my time and that people on the Government Benches will find it in their hearts to do a good deed today and put maximum pressure on the Government to abandon a thoroughly dishonourable bit of political fixing. I wish I could think of some other words to describe it, but I cannot. This is what happens when parties get together and start tinkering with the rules of the game. We may play on different sides in the game, but we ought to respect the rules. The proposal to hold the referendum on the same day as differential party political elections is an attempt to bend the rules, and we should have no part of it.

Ian Davidson: May I first make some remarks as Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? We held a seminar with the Electoral Commission, in which the point was made very strongly by Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies who were also Members of the Scottish Parliament that the Scottish Parliament was absolutely and utterly outraged by the fact that there had been no consultation on the proposal to hold the AV referendum and Scottish elections on the same day. They also indicated that the Scottish Parliament had been made aware of the fact that that was the widespread political view in Scotland. The matter certainly had not been drawn to our attention quite so forcefully in other arenas as Members of the Westminster Parliament, but we decided that the best way to explore it was to test the waters by seeking a consultation. Because of the time scale, that would not involve the Committee coming to a firm conclusion one way or the other on the merits of the case, but it would allow Scottish public opinion to express its views. We would post that on and put it before Members of Parliament in the Chamber to inform their discussions. I am glad that many Members have read that evidence, and have drawn on it in their contributions.
	It is regrettable that the evidence was made available only yesterday, and I apologise for that. I understand that some Members have not seen it at all. I can only hope that more attention will be given to it by the other place, which will have the opportunity to refer more clearly to the views that have been expressed to us by Scottish stakeholders and by political opinion.
	It is also worth drawing Members' attention to the fact that when the Committee met the Scottish Parliament's Local Government and Communities Committee on an informal basis, that multi-party Committee was unanimous in wishing to see the date changed. It wanted the AV referendum to be transferred from 5 May to another date-it did not specify when. It felt, as one of the Members said, "We were here first," as the timetable had already been set for the Scottish election, so the electoral test, which was proposed afterwards, should be shifted. I am glad to have the opportunity to draw that to hon. Members' attention.

Julian Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Davidson: I am happy to give way to another member of the Committee.

Julian Smith: It is important to clarify the fact that the Scottish Affairs Committee did not take any view on the proposal, and I hope that its Chairman can clarify that.

Ian Davidson: I think that the hon. Gentleman has just entered the Chamber, so he may have missed my saying that we agreed that we would not take a position; otherwise I would be speaking to that position. However, we took the view that it was important-indeed, vital-that political stakeholders in Scotland should be consulted by somebody, because that had not been done by the Government, so we gave people the opportunity to express their views. I am glad that in such a short time many strong views were expressed. To be fair, some people expressed one view and other people another, but there is an opportunity for all those views to inform the debate. The hon. Gentleman will agree that it is regrettable that we have not had longer to discuss those views.
	Speaking as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, I was initially agnostic about AV, and in many ways I remain agnostic about the principle of AV. I oppose the single transferable vote and other forms of proportional representation, but I could live quite easily with AV. I am much more concerned about the context in which the proposal has been introduced. It was not in my party's manifesto, so it must be a good thing and should be supported.  [ Interruption. ] It is early in the Parliament. I am in favour of the principle of a referendum, but it was never proposed in my party's manifesto that it should be held on the same day as the Scottish elections. There has been some interesting illumination of why that is the case by the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).
	I want to make my views known on two points: why we are having the referendum, and why so soon. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) made clear, the Conservatives have agreed-I am sorry if I am not quoting her exactly-that the referendum was the price they had to be pay for tackling the economic crisis. To put it in simpler language, it is the reward to the Liberals for supporting Tory cuts. That is basically why this is happening. Cuts would not go through and would not necessarily command a majority in the House if the Conservatives did not have the support of the Liberal Democrats, who have signed up to a vicious set of proposals on cuts and public expenditure to obtain the reward of a referendum on AV.
	The referendum is coming soon, because the Liberals trust the Conservatives no more than the rest of us, and they want to make sure that they are getting the reward sooner rather than later, lest they are simply fobbed off and it does not arrive at all. They do not want to be taken for mugs, so they want to make sure that the opportunities for the referendum are pressed quickly before negative publicity attracts too much opprobrium. In those circumstances, the fact the AV referendum is taking place as a reward for Tory cuts means that certainly in Scotland big campaigns will be run on the basis of saying no to the Tory cuts, no to the coalition's dirty deals, and no to AV.
	The way in which that will spill over into the Scottish elections will undoubtedly be beneficial to my own party. It will be immensely damaging, thank goodness, to the Liberals. The Conservatives, who are essentially irrelevant in Scotland, will not suffer much damage, because they cannot go much further down. No one can argue in those circumstances that holding the referendum and the elections together will not contaminate the Scottish elections. Admittedly, that benefits my party-and I look forward to that-but it means that the AV referendum will not be conducted on its own merits.
	Returning to the lack of consultation with stakeholders, I am genuinely shocked by the fact that the coalition Government chose, as far as I am aware, not to ask anyone in the Scottish Parliament or in civic Scotland what they thought of the idea of having the AV referendum and the Scottish parliamentary elections on the same day. That was entirely a top-down decision. We have heard a great deal about a new politics.  [ Interruption. ] I am not sure whether that was an approving heckle, or just a heckle, but I accept that the Member concerned is demonstrating that he is still alive. The fact that there was no consultation or discussion at all very much harks back to the old politics of drive and control, and shows immense contempt for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and- [ Interruption ]-the Northern Irish Assembly; I knew that there was another one. To add insult to injury, it is my understanding that the AV referendum will be described as the senior poll to be given priority when decisions are made about counting, publicity and all these other things.
	To hold Scottish parliamentary elections on the same day as the AV referendum is bad enough, but we have been told that those elections will be subsidiary to the referendum, which no one particularly wants. It is not the first choice of anybody, as far as I am aware. It is coming about simply because of the shabby, shoddy and disgraceful deal that I described earlier. That really is an insult-

Alan Beith: It was in your manifesto.

Ian Davidson: We were never promising it on the same day.
	Let me deal with the question of contamination. Many previous speakers have indicated the way in which they believe the debate will be contaminated in Scotland because of the spill-over. As time goes on, the main focus of debate will not be on the minutiae of the AV referendum, it will be on the impact when the AV referendum is lost by the Liberals. Will the coalition split? What price will they then demand as a reward, because what they got as a reward before will have come to naught? That will be a matter of immense focus, certainly in Scotland, and I am sure elsewhere. The collapse of the coalition only a year into a Government will be of considerable significance, not only in Scotland, but in Britain and across the world. That will be the main focus of attention and will overwhelm the coverage of the Scottish election.
	Some of my colleagues, particularly the Alliance Member, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), spoke about the difficulties of joint campaigning on the referendum. While MPs never usually take the fact that something has been said already as an excuse not to repeat it, on this occasion she has said it perfectly adequately so I will refrain from doing so. But there will also be-a point that she did not touch on particularly-confusion about costs. There will be two elections in Scotland, one for the first-past-the-post seats and one for the list seats, and then there will be referendum. People involved in both those elections will be campaigning on behalf of their parties in both elections and on the yes and no side, and there will be cross-cutting cleavages. The process of allocating expenditure will be almost impossible, I should have thought.
	Many of us in Scotland are aware-I am glad to see in his place the right hon. Member for Ettrick, Lauderdale and Tweeddale-is it?

David Mundell: indicated  dissent .

Ian Davidson: Ettrick, Tweeddale and Lauderdale? No? Well, whatever seat he has, it is quite a big and complicated seat to describe, which is perhaps an excuse as to why he was unable to fill in his expenses properly. One can imagine how difficult it will be in that constituency when not only are they filling in the expenses for the first-past-the-post seat and the list seat, but the referendum as well. I wish him well in resolving his difficulties, but one can imagine the problems there being replicated all over the country, with the scope for legal actions and threats. They are enormous. On those grounds alone, if there were not so many other grounds to do so, we should be supporting the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and opposing the idea of having these elections on the same day.

Nicholas Boles: It is with great nervousness that I rise to speak, because we have heard so many brilliant speeches-sincere, passionate, beautifully constructed speeches-from senior Members. I think in particular of my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh)-my own particular colleague in Lincolnshire-for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing). We have also heard some passionate, well argued contributions, in particular from Members who represent parties in the other great nations of the United Kingdom than the one from which I come. It is with perhaps even greater nervousness that I speak as a new Member of the House, here for only a few months, when so many distinguished people, who have sat on these Benches for five, 10, 15 or 20 years, speak against the Bill and in favour of the amendments.
	It seems that I will be the lone voice on these Benches to speak in favour of the Government's proposals and against the amendments. This debate, which we have all sat in now for more than four hours, has been a classic case of politicians talking to politicians about matters that interest only politicians and that matter not a jot to the people whom we are meant to represent. It is entirely understandable that this debate should be of such great moment to politicians, because we are discussing the process by which we apply for and interview for our jobs-the electoral system. So it is no surprise that we are all so concerned that we are willing to sit here for interminable hours discussing the finer detail of the funding of elections and of the broadcasting balance.
	One would imagine, listening to the contributions from all parts of the Committee, from people of great seniority as I have said, that the process by which people determine their vote is that they empty their diaries, clear their social lives and spend a full four weeks reading every leaflet, considering every proposition, listening to every programme, weighing up the arguments and being influenced by the precise balance on every programme of the political views expressed. That is not the case. I am humble enough to know that 90% of the people who voted for me last May do not have the first clue who I am and that 90% of them will not have the first clue who I am when in five, 10 or 15 years' time I leave this place. They will never have had the first clue who I am or any interest in that subject, and all power to them.
	The way in which people-normal people who are not interested in the finer detail of political machinations-make up their minds is by getting glancing reactions from the 10 o'clock news. They turn on their television sets to watch "The X Factor", but it is not quite time, so they have to watch some boring programme in which someone is talking about something. In other cases, they have read the sports pages, or their wait for a meeting is dragging on and on, so they read a bit of political coverage. Then they make up their minds relatively quickly. That is not to suggest, as some have suggested, that people are unsophisticated; far from it. Unlike us, who require five hours to churn endlessly through these issues before making up our minds and voting in the Lobbies, they make up their minds quickly. They make judgments about our character, our motives and our arguments quickly. They do not need four weeks separately for all of us to go round and round the issues. They do not need more than four minutes to make up their minds.

Charles Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that our constituents elect us to use our considered judgments on the big issues of the day, and if we are to have a referendum, let us do it in a way that ensures that we get it right?

Nicholas Boles: I always defer to my hon. Friend, and in particular on the question whether we are right, here and now, to deliberate the issues. I cannot say that it is my idea of fun, but it is what we are here to do, and it is right that we should do it. However, does that mean that we should therefore expect the people to go through a similar process in answering a simple question about a voting system? I do not think that we should.
	It is revealing when some Opposition Members talk about the lack of consultation in the other nations of the United Kingdom. They never refer to the opinions of their people. They talk about-I quote the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson)-there having been no consultation with the stakeholders and about political opinion. To me, that sounds as though we are talking about elites.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the Scottish Parliament is the most democratic forum that represents the opinions of the Scottish people?

Nicholas Boles: I am second to no one in this place, even to the hon. Gentleman, in my respect for the Scottish Parliament. I am a Conservative who always believed that we should have had a Scottish Parliament, and I am delighted that we have one. However, I hold the Scottish Parliament in as much contempt as I do all our political elites, in that we do not necessarily reflect the interests, concerns and priorities of the people whom we represent when we discuss politics itself and how elections are conducted.

Mark Durkan: Is the hon. Gentleman's argument that politicians are not good at deferring to the people when they argue about politics? That is not exactly a case for saying that politicians should campaign in elections on the day when the electorate are choosing the democratic process that gives them their power of choice in the future.

Nicholas Boles: Absolutely not. That is actually the contrary argument. The argument should be that if somebody can present me with evidence that people other than politicians, stakeholders, returning officers and anyone involved in all the other bureaucratic paraphernalia of getting ourselves these jobs would prefer-

Naomi Long: rose-

Nicholas Boles: Even in mid-sentence, I give way.

Naomi Long: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The evidence that I presented during my contribution was that when more than one election is happening on the same day, people often turn up at polling stations with the wrong identification because they are getting conflicting bits of information through the post and are often unable to cast their votes. That issue matters to my constituents. This is not about electoral elites, but about pensioners in my constituency who trek to the polling station and cannot actually vote.

Nicholas Boles: I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady's point. All I say to her is that it should be possible to iron out those issues. Why different forms of identification are necessary for different elections is beyond me. I was in the Select Committee when we interviewed the head of the Electoral Commission, and she confirmed that while those are challenges, they are manageable challenges and that there is therefore no objection.

Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend is not only charming, but courteous in giving way so graciously. May I ask him to address the specific objections put forward in the debate, not least one that is completely unaffected by his point about whether people make up their minds quickly or whether they need a long period of time to decide on these issues? Will he address the matter of differential turnout caused by different types of elections being held or not held on the same day?
	Even if I accepted his point that people will make up their minds in exactly the same way with a long period of consultation or a short period of consultation, the fact is that what matters is whether they will go to the polls and cast their votes. By holding the referendum on the day when there are important elections in some parts of the country, less important elections in others and no elections in still others, we will get differential, unfair and skewed results.

Nicholas Boles: I am surprised that my hon. Friend has made that argument, because he is a doughty defender of freedom and democratic rights. Everybody in this country-in all the countries that make up this country- will have an identical democratic right to cast their vote in the referendum or not. We should not judge whether they want to or whether the campaigns will motivate them to. We already have differential turnout across general elections. So long as people have an identical right, it is all that matters.
	I have detained hon. Members for far too long-

Bernard Jenkin: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making this speech, because it is illuminating. We have the new politics, and I think that we are hearing the new elitism: we do not mind how ill informed electors may be or how difficult it is for ordinary electors to hear a clear argument-it does not matter, because we know that they are not interested and that we will just do what we want. Is my hon. Friend not describing that new elitism?

Nicholas Boles: I defer to my hon. Friend on elitism, a subject on which he is a great expert. However, calling people "ordinary", and saying that if they do not have four weeks of a constant barrage of information on a particular subject they will be ill informed sounds pretty elitist to me.

Chris Bryant: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's argument now boils down to his belief that we should not be wasting three hours-he said four hours, but actually we have been going for only three, although it may feel like four-on all this, because we have not spoken to our electors and asked them what they think. I am sure that most of my electors in the Rhondda would say that they do not want any messing around with the constitution in this particular way, so the hon. Gentleman's argument is basically against the whole Bill.

Nicholas Boles: I hate to have words put in my mouth by anyone, let alone the hon. Gentleman. However, he is close to my conclusion, and I will now get to it. It is that most people, if asked, would say, "Ask us once a year what we want and what we think about how we want to be run, and then just get out of our lives and get on with it." That is why I welcome legislation that says that once a year we will have a general election, national elections or a referendum.
	I take an even more radical position. I would have, as in America, a date that everybody knows. People there can say what the dates of the presidential, congressional, mayoral or gubernatorial elections will be in 40 years' time. Everybody knows when elections are, which is when they start to look at the questions.

Chris Bryant: It is every four years.

Nicholas Boles: It is every two years, actually, because there are mid-terms.
	That is the time when all this should be done. It is the right way to conduct elections and to handle these matters, because it responds to how people think about the issues, rather than politicians.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful to you, Mr Hoyle, for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I say "debate", but until the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) spoke, it was not much of a debate, but more of a monologue: every speaker, apart from the Minister, had the same opinion in support of the amendments that would move the date of the referendum from the date scheduled in the legislation.
	The hon. Gentleman talked eloquently about the people, and politicians, talking to each other. I have no doubt that none of this debate this afternoon and evening will get any coverage at all anywhere in the main news media. I doubt very much whether it will get any coverage in the press tomorrow. Frankly, people are not interested in the subject. That is the reality. If we were really honest about it and were following a new agenda and new politics, we would be saying that what we are discussing is not on people's minds at all: they are far more interested in the economy, jobs and the wars going on, with soldiers dying and all the rest of it. They are not interested in our spending days upon days debating this subject, which is of interest only to certain politicians in certain parties.

Thomas Docherty: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the issue of electoral reform does not excite interest. However, I can certainly say that Scottish newspapers have followed with interest-indeed, anger-the fact that the Government will not listen to the devolved Administrations around the United Kingdom.

Nigel Dodds: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He spoke at length about his own amendment. Of course people in the devolved regions are concerned about the impact, on their elections and their issues of concern, of having this referendum question imposed on them without any consultation. The respect agenda has been mentioned over and over again, and the fact that there was no consultation with the devolved Administrations or the elected representatives of the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is an indictment of the Prime Minister's and Deputy Prime Minister's approach to the subject.
	We are debating this matter today, and tomorrow we will debate the increase in the EU's budget. Many people outside will say, "What on earth is going on in Parliament?" Today we are debating a subject that is of no interest to people given the current challenges, whereas tomorrow we will vote on giving the EU more money despite the 25% cuts in the budgets of mainstream Departments in the United Kingdom. People have a right to ask why there is a disconnect between the people's priorities and the politicians' priorities-or perhaps I should say the Government's priorities. So far, since they came to power, the main focus of the Government's legislative programme has been to rush ahead with fundamental constitutional changes and major changes to our political process and our democratic way of working in Parliament and in this country, without any of the normal conventions having been followed. There has been no pre-legislative scrutiny of major legislation, which is deeply disquieting when we consider the future of this place.
	I shall not repeat what other Members, such as the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), have said about the impact of the referendum being held on the same day as the elections in Northern Ireland. We have heard from various Members that the same points apply in Wales and Scotland. It is a major concern that there will potentially be three elections on the same day in Northern Ireland-council elections, Assembly elections and the referendum.
	The problem is not that people in Northern Ireland are not adept at voting in different elections with different voting systems, or used to doing so. They are more than capable of getting their heads round that. The problem is that the national media will concentrate on the AV referendum, which will be confusing for people. There are also practical and logistical problems for the political process, such as the different electoral registers and electorates that exist for the council and Assembly elections and the referendum. There will be council elections and Assembly elections based on the single transferrable vote, and a referendum by simple majority on whether we should have AV for Westminster elections, so one can imagine the potential for confusion.

Jim Shannon: My right hon. Friend will be aware that this week, the question to be asked in the AV referendum was changed because of a belief that the general public did not have the capacity to understand it: it was thought important to get the question right so that people would get the answer correct. A Cabinet Office spokesman said that it was important that
	"the referendum question is clear and simple to understand."
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that the same logic should be used when it comes to the Assembly and council elections? They should be kept separate from the referendum to make them clear and simple to understand.

Nigel Dodds: I agree with my hon. Friend, and the referendum question will, I hope, be the subject of another debate later this evening.
	If there is to be a change of date, it has to be to the date of the referendum. There can be absolutely no question of the elections in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland being moved. As all parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly have said-I cannot speak for other devolved legislatures-our council and Assembly elections should proceed on the designated date in May, and the referendum vote should be held at a different time. I hope that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will take that on board, because the situation is unlike the one in Scotland. A Conservative Member mentioned the Scottish Parliament's ability to move the date of the Scottish Parliament elections, but in Northern Ireland the Assembly cannot vote to move the date of Assembly elections. It can vote by a two-thirds majority to dissolve itself, but only the Secretary of State can move the date of the Assembly elections. That is a real problem.

William McCrea: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is strange that not one Member has spoken up for the Bill from the party that says that the matter is of paramount importance to the UK and must be pushed through before other legislation? In fact, the one Member who spoke to support the Bill, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), said that 90% of his constituents did not even know who he was.

Nigel Dodds: I am sure that the same could not be said of my hon. Friend. Doubtless at least one Liberal Democrat Member will seek to catch your eye, Mr Hoyle, at some point in the debate, and we all look forward to that contribution immensely.
	Given that there has been no pre-legislative scrutiny and that the measure is being rushed through-that flies in the face of normal constitutional conventions about seeking cross-party consensus-and given that legislation will also be introduced on, for example, House of Lords reform, it is vital to take the opportunity tonight to vote down the proposal to hold the referendum on the same date as the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland elections.

Mark Williams: I am delighted to be called at such an opportune moment. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) spoke of the purgatory that he has endured in the past few hours. As a Liberal, sitting here has not been the most pleasurable experience for me, either.
	Let me start by dispelling the myth that I am either distinguished-the accolade that the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) bestowed on me; I was sitting next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), so it was a case of mistaken identity-or an anorak, which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) accused me of being. Indeed, I am also not an agent of the forces of darkness, as suggested by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson).
	I did not intend to speak, but, like other hon. Members, my conscience has been pricked by some contributions. I say, first as a Welsh Member of Parliament and secondly as a Liberal Democrat, that the debate has been powerful-a little one-sided, but none the less powerful-and it has touched on the legitimacy of the devolved institutions.
	I remain enthusiastic about the referendum. The alternative vote system is not ideal-it is not the system for which my party has spent many years campaigning; that is STV-the single transferable vote. However, it is what is on offer. I do not believe that there were great conspiratorial discussions in the Cabinet Office or anywhere else when the coalition document was drawn up. Indeed, I know that there were not.
	As a Liberal, I believe in government partly by referendum. We should not lose sight of that: whatever our view of AV, we are putting the matter to the British people. I do not accept that there has been a conspiracy. We have heard different evidence from different people about the effect of differential turnout and the alleged implications of the date.
	I want to focus on three issues. The first is cost. The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) said that cost was a significant factor. Others dismissed that, but I would like to hear from the Minister about cost. I came here believing that it was a factor, but others have said that it is not, so I want to hear more.
	Secondly, I want to acknowledge the comments of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. I know what my voters in Ceredigion and Aberystwyth will say when faced with the prospect of three elections in a year. They said it when we held the first elections for the National Assembly in the same year as the community council and county council elections. "Not more elections!" they said. I want to deal with that specifically when we consider turnout, because it is a concern.

Thomas Docherty: On the rare occasions when the Deputy Prime Minister has taken part in any sort of debate on the issue, he claims that this is the greatest reform since the Reform Act 1832, yet the hon. Gentleman suggests that it cannot excite the good burghers of his constituency. Which is it?

Mark Williams: The hon. Gentleman is being selective. The Bill is one part of a big package. We have not even started work on reform of the second Chamber. The Government will tackle a whole range of issues over a longer period. Have I, like the hon. Gentleman, had the biggest postbag on AV? No, I have not. It is important to galvanise opinion in this country by putting the question to the people in a referendum.

Thomas Docherty: On further reforms, would it have made more sense to have a proper constitutional debate, perhaps through a constitutional convention, and to put all aspects of the reform agenda into a single Bill, rather than rushing this Bill through, as the Government are trying to do?

Mark Williams: I have been in the House for the last five years and the hon. Gentleman has been here only five months, but he is answerable for the inactivity of the Labour party on those issues. The Liberal Democrats and our Government have taken the right stance. We need to judge the package over a longer period.
	As for simplicity, it resonates strongly with people that they will be able to go out and get it all done in one go when they vote on that polling day. That is the most important point. However, on consultation with stakeholders, which the hon. Member for Glasgow South West talked about-my friends in the nationalist parties will agree with me on this-I deeply regret the extent to which my Government have not always been thorough in their dialogue with the National Assembly for Wales and the other devolved Governments of this country. They need to acknowledge that. I will be interested in what the Minister says about that in the context of the extent of consultation to date. The Government need to improve on that if they are to take the National Assembly for Wales and the people of Wales with them.

Mark Durkan: All hon. Members appreciate the remarks of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams). We take both the sincerity of his criticism of his Government and his defence of the proposals, but we have not heard any supporter of the Bill answer this question: what is the imperative of 5 May 2011? Why the absolute insistence on that date? I think the Deputy Prime Minister will come to regret that as a serious episode of premature calculation. He somehow decided that it suited him for internal party reasons, and perhaps for the prospects for success in the referendum, to go for that date.
	I fully recognise that Liberal Democrats did not want a Bill that did not contain a guaranteed date, which is why they will be suspicious of some amendments in the group. They will say no to some proposals because they would allow too much elasticity and too many other conditions to get in the way. There was therefore an imperative to include a date.
	It was probably also imperative for Liberal Democrats to have a date in 2011, and probably one before next year's Liberal Democrats annual conference, just as Second Reading of the Bill was scheduled conveniently before this year's conference, so that they had a trophy and could say, "Look what we're getting already! Look what we're putting through!"
	I understand those political needs-the Liberal Democrats needed to assure themselves and their activists that the Bill was real-but amendment 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and to which I have put my name, addresses and accommodates such imperatives. It would guarantee a date before the Liberal Democrat conference, but it would also ensure that the date was not in conflict with other important elections, such as the long-delayed and overdue local authority elections in Northern Ireland and the Assembly elections, which other right hon. and hon. Members mentioned. We have also heard that argument from Welsh and Scottish Members in respect of elections in their countries.
	Amendment 1 offers Liberal Democrats the certainty of a date without the complications and conflicts that attach to 5 May. The proposal would also ensure, as others have said, that parties could duly observe the proper six-month referendum period, and that the Electoral Commission could properly monitor it, as per its responsibilities. Members should reflect on the fact that this will be the first test of the Electoral Commission's handling of a full-blown, cross-UK referendum. It will be the first test of how it discharges its responsibility for overseeing the proprieties imposed on it by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. To ask the commission to discharge that role in the context of so many other campaign atmospherics, with various leaflets and materials being sent out in at least three areas of the UK, is too much.
	Politicians will end up crossing the line and answering referendum-related questions in a context that is meant to be election-related. National networks will find it difficult to deal only with the AV referendum and not with the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the regional networks will be in serious trouble in covering the campaigns properly. For instance, how will they cover the election campaign in Northern Ireland? Will they have to tell people that they are not allowed to ask a panel of candidates about the referendum? If candidates in the election talk about the referendum, they might influence matters. Regional networks will have to try to run separate coverage, so that those of us who wish to campaign in both the election and the referendum can do so separately and can show that we did one thing in relation to one campaign and another in relation to the other campaign. That will create an impossible position, and the difficulties will include trying to rein in the excesses of the big networks and dealing with the dilemmas for regional broadcasters in covering the parliamentary and Assembly elections.

Lorely Burt: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument and wondering how his constituents might feel about different types of election being held at the same time. I do not understand why he thinks that they are not capable of understanding that. Can he not give them the credit for being able to comprehend the difference?

Mark Durkan: I fully recognise that the electorate in my constituency and elsewhere in Northern Ireland can cope with having different elections on the same day. Irish people can cope with elections and referendums on the same day, as we have seen in the south of Ireland. However, the electoral body in the south learned the lessons from that and pointed out the serious issues that arose, including in relation to programmes that were meant to be about the referendum campaign, with a representative from the yes side and one from the no side. But some parties involved in the election on the same day were not included in the broadcasts, and that caused serious controversy about the balance of the coverage. The legislation that this House has previously passed about the obligations in referendums and election campaigns is already difficult to observe, but it will be even more difficult to observe it when both are held at the same time.

Mark Tami: If the argument is that the elections and the referendum should be held on the same day, surely we should also have the vote on extra powers for the Welsh Assembly on the same day. However, the Liberal Democrats in the Assembly are not arguing for that. They want it one way for the referendum and another for that vote.

Mark Durkan: My hon. Friend has punctured the argument and identified the inconsistency of the Liberal Democrats, and I shall not add anything further on that.
	As legislators, we will have to think about these difficulties. We must look at previous legislation and at the situations that might be generated by what we do tonight. It is not about saying that the public cannot cope with different choices, but about the media and political systems and the Electoral Commission itself. Many of us have asked questions in the past about how well the commission does its job of monitoring elections and election expenditure, and the bye balls it appears to give to some people who cannot complete returns or who put in returns of very little expenditure that completely contradict their evident and expensive publicity material. So it is about ensuring that the elections are fought free from controversy and confusion about referendum campaign spending, and about ensuring that the campaign takes place in conditions that are most conducive to full and proper debate.
	The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) made an important point about cross-party campaigning. One of the benefits of a referendum campaign that perhaps enables people from different parties to unite and join forces to commend or resist a reform is that it offers an almost unique opportunity in Northern Ireland for cross-party campaigning and a public debate. That will be completely eclipsed if the referendum takes place against a backdrop of Assembly and local government elections. The imperatives of party politics and the party vote will always outweigh the democratic debate about which is the better voting system.
	I believe that in Northern Ireland we can have a debate about the merits of the alternative vote, and if later amendments succeed and we have a bigger choice in the referendum, so much the better. However, we could at least have a debate in Northern Ireland about the alternative vote, which would be one way of freeing us from the tragedy of the first-past-the-post system. The latter condemns us to sectarian head counts at Westminster elections, because people have to vote tactically either for the nationalist likely to beat the Unionist or the Unionist likely to beat the nationalist. People who want to vote for other reasons and express more sophisticated political preferences and endorsements find themselves trapped in that sort of sectarian head count by first past the post. If people do not want to be freed from the sectarian headcount, they can make that choice, but at least let us have that honest and open debate on a cross-party basis. We will not be able to have that debate if this referendum takes place on 5 May 2011. If that is what the Liberal Democrats want to condemn Northern Ireland to, so be it, but the rest of us want better-not just for next year, but for the future.
	Some Members have raised issues about differential turnouts. I am less concerned about that. If I am concerned about anything, it is that some Conservative Members who do not have to contend with elections of party colleagues in their constituencies will turn up and have time to spare campaigning on the referendum in Northern Ireland. They could be prolific and very active in the referendum campaign, while the rest of us would be preoccupied with election campaigns. The issue of differential attendances can work more than one way, which is why hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), are right to say that we should suspend our calculations of how one day might favour the vote on one side or another. Let us just say that we want to ensure as little confusion and controversy as possible. If we go for the day proposed, there will be confusion, controversy and allegations of undue conduct and improper spending, which will only bring us back all over again to the expenses scandal and the contamination of politics by money.

Hywel Williams: We have had a very good debate, and I will not detain the Committee with repetition. However, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who defended the Government's position.

Angus MacNeil: Promotion, promotion!

Hywel Williams: Promotion, indeed. The hon. Gentleman was heroically, magnificently incoherent-so he should go far on the Government Benches.
	The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) distanced himself-and, to some extent, his party-from this shambles. That has a significance in Wales that some hon. Members perhaps do not quite realise.
	As far as I can see, there are many, many reasons not to hold the referendum on the same date as the elections in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but so far no compelling reasons have been offered for why we must have the referendum on 5 May next year, apart from the reasons alluded to earlier: that this is part of the deal between the two parties that make up the coalition. As far as I can see, that is the only reason offered.
	My major concern is that the referendum is to be held on the same day as the Assembly elections in Wales. In that respect, the arguments that we have heard about political interference from one campaign to the other are pertinent. It is difficult for us to hold the Assembly elections and the referendum on the same day, not least because of the points that have already been made about the media. In Wales, English newspapers have a huge penetration. Very few people read newspapers originating in Wales. The debate is therefore dominated by UK issues, or perhaps even by English issues. That will have a significant effect on the democratic debate leading up to our Assembly elections.
	The argument has been made that there is a cost element involved, but, as I said in an earlier intervention, we will now have another referendum in Wales, on 3 March-we will have one on 3 March, one on 5 May and the Assembly elections on 5 May. That blows out of the water some of the arguments about cost.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman said that there would be a referendum on 3 March. My understanding is that the Assembly has asked for that referendum to be held on 3 March, but we have not yet heard from the Secretary of State for Wales whether there will be a referendum on that date or not.

Hywel Williams: I take the hon. Gentleman's point entirely. One of the reasons put forward for holding that referendum on 3 March is that there might be contamination between the referendum on further powers, the referendum on AV and the Assembly elections. That argument has been made by those in all parties in Wales, and it is the same argument that we are making this evening.
	If we are not to have three elections on the same day in Wales, as the cost argument proposes, then why are we having two? Surely the argument against having three works against having two as well. There are a number of reasons for not holding those elections on the same day, including the difficulties of having a full and clear debate. Some hon. Members will remember the referendum that we had in 1979, when the unpopularity of the Government intruded strongly into the debate on whether devolution should have been introduced at that point. Unfortunately, the devolution question was not uppermost in many people's minds in 1979.
	There are administrative difficulties for the electoral services departments in councils. The number of ballot papers and the confusion among the general public has already been referred to, as has the ability to process electors at busy polling stations. All those reasons, which have been mentioned by other Members, are persuasive. There is also the issue of administration. Referendums have been organised in Wales on a number of previous occasions-we have even had one on Sunday opening. We are used to referendums in Wales, but they are normally organised on the basis of local government units, of which we have 22. However, on the same day as the referendum, we will be having Assembly elections organised by constituencies, 40 of which will be decided on first past the post, with a further 20 being decided on the d'Hondt 2 system. That is a recipe for potential confusion to say the least.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman mentions previous referendums, but when it comes to counting the ballot papers, is it normal practice for the ballot papers in referendums to take priority over the sovereign elections to the Welsh Assembly or local authorities?

Hywel Williams: I will refer to that point in a moment, but it is a significant one. The questions that immediately come to mind are: who will have responsibility for ensuring the correct polling cards are sent out? Who will take responsibility for ensuring that the ballot boxes are returned to the correct authority, so as to ensure that counting takes place? And, as the hon. Gentleman has said, will the UK referendum be counted first, and is that not an insult to democracy in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?
	I draw the House's attention to the election in the Vale of Glamorgan in 2007. Counting went on throughout the night, finishing at 10.30 am after five counts. Fortunately, there was no need for recounts on the regional list papers; otherwise, it would have taken even longer. We might, of course, have that sort of recount in May. There are also questions about the feasibility of holding the three votes at the same time.
	Due to the nature of the elections, the electorate in Wales will face three ballot papers at the same time: a yes/no, a d'Hondt and a first past the post. There will be two for the election for the Assembly, including one for the constituency. That could lead to the same congestion at the ballot boxes as people experienced in May this year. If many electors needed to have the ballots explained to them because they had not fully understood the significance of all three papers, that would eat further into the time available for voting. There are very persuasive arguments in favour of not having the election and the referendum on the same day, and I urge the Committee to support amendment 155.

Graham Stringer: This has been a long debate on clause 1 and one thing that I have learned, and which could apply also to other parties in the Chamber, is that we should all go to Grantham and Stamford and introduce 90% of the electorate to the hon. Member who represents them at the moment. If they knew the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), there would perhaps be a different result in that constituency. He did, however, point out that some of the debate that goes on here does not have a resonance outside; people are not talking about d'Hondt, the alternative vote or PR.
	My position is that there should not be a referendum. On 9 February, when there was a vote in the House on the issue, I was not persuaded when the Whip said, "Vote for a referendum on AV because the Lords will overturn it." That struck me as an inadequate justification for a major constitutional change, and I have not altered my position. I have listened to all the contributions today, and I watched with exquisite pleasure the misery on the faces of his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) destroyed the case for a referendum on 5 May-the same day as different elections in different parts of the United Kingdom. I think that that argument was won fully. I also accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) said that one reason why we are discussing the matter when people outside do not want to do so is quite simply that a deal was done between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. The Conservatives do not like it but it will keep them in power, and it will give a political advantage to the Lib Dems, who will therefore vote for cuts.
	The situation is slightly worse than that, though. There is a double gerrymander in the Bill. The changes in boundaries-perpetual changes without any right to challenge them-deal only with a tiny part of the problem of more votes being needed to elect a Member from one party than from another. The Bill also cuts 11%-a Rawlings and Thrasher estimate-of the seats that the Labour party has, 11% of those that the Lib Dems have, and 4% of those of the Conservatives. In an alliance, there has to be a quid pro quo, so what is it? It is believed, with rather less statistical analysis than in the boundary review, that AV will benefit the Lib Dems. It may well do so; I suspect that there is some common sense to that.
	The justification for the referendum on AV, then, has nothing to do with what the Deputy Prime Minister tells us-that it is about putting trust back into politics after last year's horrific expenses scandal. I have yet to hear any explanation as to how AV as opposed to first-past-the-post will make people feel better about somebody who wants to buy a Stockholm duck house at the public expense. There is no relationship whatever between the two issues.
	I have come to a slightly different conclusion from that of Conservative Members to whose speeches I enjoyed listening. Fundamental constitutional change is proposed which will give advantage to the two political parties in a coalition Government. It is more common to change the rules in between elections for the party political advantage of those parties in government. This proposal has been a trait more of nearly democratic countries in eastern Europe in the past, and now more commonly occurs in Africa. If Parliament is to go through with what I consider to be an unnecessary referendum, it should be with an eye not to the next general election, where clear vested interests are at stake, but to the one after that. That is why I tabled amendment 225.
	Some good general points against having referendums on the same day as other elections have been made, but the focus of a UK-wide election and a decision to change the voting system for the future takes out the rather cynical self-interest of the two parties in government. When not just 85% but 100% of the electorate are involved, such a thing is worth doing. There is thus a sound argument for proceeding on that basis, although there is not much of a sound argument for having the referendum itself.
	Let me provide the three reasons why I believe it would be worth proceeding on such a basis. First, there would be a higher turnout-coherently and consistently across the whole country. Secondly, there would be no self-interest, so we would avoid the cynicism of the two parties in coalition changing the rules in between elections to their own advantage. Thirdly, although the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford thinks that everyone can understand things instantly, I do not. This is a complicated issue and most of the electorate take these things seriously. Much of the current propaganda says things that might be true but are not true. People say, "If you have AV, you get the support of 50% of the electorate." Well, in some cases that is so; in others it is not. It is still possible to get elected on AV on less than 50%.
	Some people believe that AV is more proportional. In some cases, such as the general elections of 1983 and 1997, AV would have produced a less proportional result, with more extreme victories for the Conservatives and Labour respectively. What AV probably does produce-experience of this coalition before the next general election will provide a very good argument against it-are more coalitions. For those reasons, I will support amendments that move the referendum away from 5 May, because that is the worst of the proposals before us. My preference, however, is for having a referendum that will affect not the next general election, but the one after that.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who does not appear to be present at the moment, said that he might be the only speaker for the Government. Fortunately my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) chipped in with some additional support. I can reassure him and, indeed, the Chief Whip that I too intend to speak on behalf of the Government.
	All the amendments seek to delay the date on which the referendum takes place, either proposing a specific alternative or suggesting a mechanism enabling the date to be determined later. Some, including amendments 4 and 126, are intended to prevent the combination of the referendum with other polls.
	I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed about the combination of the polls next May, but they ignore the fact that it is not unusual to combine elections. Many of us, either this year or in 2005, were elected at a general election, determining who would govern the country, on a day on which people were voting in other elections. I therefore do not think it reasonable to suggest that people are not capable of making decisions about various levels of government and voting on referendums on the same day.

Bernard Jenkin: I am reluctant to intervene so early in my hon. Friend's speech. However, I think that there can be a justification for combining different elections on the same day, simply because the political parties are likely to be fighting analogous campaigns in those elections. The difference between that and combining a referendum with an election is that the referendum issue is, or should be-as the Electoral Commission suggested in 2002-elevated above party politics. It is rather more difficult to elevate the debate about the referendum issue above party politics if those taking part in referendum campaigns are taking part in party political election campaigns at the same time. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made that point extremely well.

Mark Harper: I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend that parties campaign on the same issues. In 2005, when elections to Gloucestershire county council were taking place and I was also fighting a general election, we were campaigning on very different issues. We were campaigning on national issues for the purposes of the general election, but on specific local issues for the purposes of the Gloucestershire election.
	Our programme for government made a commitment to the public to hold the referendum. We feel that the public have a right to expect that commitment to be delivered promptly, and we believe that holding the referendum on 5 May next year will deliver it.
	I do not follow the argument about differential turnouts. Most of the country will vote next year, 84% of the electorate in the United Kingdom and 81% of the electorate in England. It is not true that everyone in England will be faced with other elections, but the vast majority will. A significant amount of money-about £30 million-can be saved for the taxpayer. Although that is not a reason for combining elections, it seems to me that if there is to be a referendum and if there is no other obvious reason why a combination does not make sense, going out of our way to spend an extra £30 million, particularly at a time when money is tight, would be perverse.

Thomas Docherty: There is a question that I hoped to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, but I am afraid that the Minister will have to answer it. Have he and the Deputy Prime Minister actually read the Gould report, and if so, when?

Mark Harper: We have indeed. I was coming to that. Let me try to find the relevant page about Mr Gould so that I can whip it out.
	I can tell Members on both sides of the Committee who were keen on overnight counting in the general election-I seem to remember that it was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), and that her proposal received tremendous cross-party support-that those who say that Ron Gould is the fount of all knowledge, and that his views on elections should be listened to unquestioningly, ought to know that he does not believe in overnight counts of ballot papers. Those who cite him as the fount of all wisdom should be a little cautious.
	To be fair, Ron Gould says that he would prefer the two polls to be held on separate dates. However, he also says that he does not think that holding them on the same day would cause the problems that were experienced in 2007, because voting systems are less complex now. He points out that there will be elections based on existing systems that will not be changed, along with a simple, straightforward question. He does not foresee the problems that the hon. Gentleman seems to anticipate.

Thomas Docherty: When did the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister first read the Gould report? Was that before or after they announced the referendum date?

Mark Harper: The Deputy Prime Minister and I have looked very carefully at the submissions Mr Gould made to the Scottish Affairs Committee, and also at the other submissions. We have also looked at the relevant sections of the Gould report, and the analysis is not the same. We are not talking about multiple voting systems. We are talking about a straightforward question with a yes or no answer. I simply fail to see why that would cause an incredible amount of problems.
	I think voters are perfectly able to distinguish between the polls. On Second Reading, I said to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) that he was understating the qualities of his own constituents and the Scottish people in general. I think they are perfectly capable of making judgments about who they want to represent them in the Scottish Parliament-as, indeed, are Welsh and Northern Irish voters in respect of the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies-and of making a judgment about what the voting system should be for this Parliament. I think they are perfectly capable of making that judgment, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not agree.

Angus MacNeil: I was not in any way casting aspersions on the electorate. I was casting aspersions on the capabilities of the media to deal with more than one issue. They are obsessed with programmes such as "X Factor" and they struggle with complexity-as, I am a little surprised to discover, the Minister is too at the moment.

Mark Harper: I was referring to the debate we had on Second Reading. I shall come on to the hon. Gentleman's contributions of today shortly.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mark Harper: I shall give way now to the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

Ian Davidson: The comments of Ron Gould to which the Minister has referred deal, I think, with the previous Scottish and local government elections. Is the Minister aware that on 21 September Ron Gould said in a note to the Committee:
	"My basic view is that it would be preferable to separate these two voting activities in order to give the voters the opportunity to focus specifically on each of them"?
	To be fair, he also said that the same complexities are not present in both sorts of election. However, he went on to say that the evidence suggests that
	"in this event a number of pilot projects and focus groups be carried out to identify any unforeseen problems which might arise."
	Does the Minister intend to undertake such studies before a joint AV referendum and election are proceeded with?

Mark Harper: I do not think the hon. Gentleman was listening carefully enough to what I said. I clearly stated that Ron Gould said in the evidence he submitted to the hon. Gentleman's Committee that his first choice would be to hold the polls on separate dates but that he did not think that the same complexities as arose in the 2007 votes would arise in this instance. My officials have been working closely with electoral administrators across the UK, and with the Electoral Commission, to do exactly what Ron Gould suggests, which is to make sure that any combined polls are run smoothly and well and go ahead without problems. That has been taking place during the summer.
	The rigorous testing carried out by the Electoral Commission should also reassure those worried about voter confusion-a point made from the Opposition Benches. The new draft of the question, which we will be debating shortly, enables the electorate to understand clearly the choice they are being asked to make and to express their views.

Thomas Docherty: rose-

Mark Harper: Let me just make some progress so that I can deal with the points made in the debate.
	I also do not accept the proposal in amendment 155 that the referendum date should be agreed by the Scottish Parliament and Northern Irish and Welsh Assemblies- despite the respect that, of course, I have for them. The dates of elections are not agreed in conjunction with them. There is no precedent for suggesting that elections or referendums can be held only with the consent of those involved in other polls. I do not think it is appropriate for devolved Administrations, effectively, to be able to veto policies of the UK Government. Although they might welcome that, neither I nor the Government think it is appropriate.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mark Harper: I am going to make some more progress, or else I will be in danger of not answering the significant number of points made in this debate.
	I am conscious of having given the Committee, through today's programme motion, an extra hour of time, and I want to make sure that we reach our debate on the question that we will put to people in the referendum.
	Amendments 6 and 126 suggest that the Electoral Commission should have a role in assessing the suitability of the poll date. Amendment 6 goes further, suggesting that the Electoral Commission should recommend the date and the length of the referendum period. I do not think it is right in principle that the Electoral Commission should have any of those roles. It is surely right that if the Government intend a referendum to be held, they should propose the date, which should then be discussed and agreed by Parliament. Proposing that the Electoral Commission should assume responsibility drags the Electoral Commission, which should be neutral, into the heart of that political debate, and that is not appropriate. That is why the Government are not able to accept those amendments.
	Amendment 225, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who spoke last, proposed to change the referendum date to that of the next general election. Clearly, that was designed to undermine the commitment to move quickly on our reform process. Delaying the referendum to 7 May 2015, which is the date of the next scheduled general election under our Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, does not make any sense. Having a referendum on the voting system for the general election on the same day that the general election is to be held does not make sense.
	I shall now deal with some issues raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar-I hope he will forgive me if I do not pronounce that quite right, because I do try-opened the debate, making clear his view that the respect agenda was not intact and referring to the counting of the results. The Government have made it clear-I know that the Electoral Commission shares this view-that counting the election results first is important, because it does matter who governs Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is the plan; the referendum result will be counted when those elections are out of the way. So I think that the respect agenda is intact.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) picked up well on the contradictory nature of the debate coming from those on the Benches opposite; an argument was being put that the AV referendum would drown out the debate on national issues, yet simultaneously another argument was being made that the national issues would mean that the referendum debate would not get a proper hearing. She correctly spotted that, and I do not think that the point was adequately answered. I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) if he still wishes to intervene.

William McCrea: If the counting for the Assembly elections is resolved, we still have to address the counting of the council elections. Is that to wait until after the counting of the referendum? Where do we come in, because we already have two elections set for the same day?

Mark Harper: The Government's position is very clear: there is an imperative to get the results of the elections to Parliament, the Assemblies and local councils decided first, because it is important who runs those organisations. The result of the referendum is important, but given that any change will not come in until the next election, the counting of the referendum will take place after the other counts. The Government have made that position clear and it is shared by the Electoral Commission. This might be a little frustrating for those who want the referendum result to be given as early as possible, but it is important that elections are counted first. That was the very clear sense that emerged from the previous Parliament when we debated when the general election count should take place. Results of elections need to be heard first.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who is in his place, referred to the Government's view of the referendum outcome and gave all sorts of thoughts as to how we had arrived at the date. Of course the Government are neutral about the outcome of the referendum. The two coalition parties are not, but the Government do not have a view. When the Deputy Prime Minister and I were considering the Bill and its details that was the view that we jointly took.
	I also do not take my hon. Friend's view, which we debated a little following his intervention, about treating votes differently. I do not buy the argument that, because some parts of the United Kingdom are voting and some are not, that in some sense treats voters differently. Even voters in the parts of England that do not have other elections next year are perfectly capable of listening to the arguments. They have the same ability to go out to vote as anybody else, and I do not understand this argument about differential turnout that he and other hon. Friends raised.

Bernard Jenkin: The Minister is dealing with the House with his customary courtesy. I quoted a leading academic on the subject of referendums, and he could not think of any previous referendum in any other democratic country that was held concurrently with other polls in some parts of the country, while in other parts of the country there were no other elections. Which example are we following? Which example is the Electoral Commission drawing on in support of the idea of concurrent elections? Can he give a single example from anywhere in the world where a referendum has been held at a time when there are elections in some parts of the country but not in others?

Mark Harper: Off the top of my head, no, I cannot, but I do not see that that point is at all valid. I do not see that there is any problem with voters being able to make the decisions sensibly. My hon. Friend underrates those whom we ask to vote for us. His point is partly answered if we consider this year's general election. There was a combination of a general election and local elections in some parts of the United Kingdom, but not everywhere. Some voters voted in more than one election, and some did not. I do not think that that had an impact on the results of either the local elections or the general election. If Members think that the situation meant that the results were illegitimate, that rather impacts on the results of those of us who are Members of this House.

Julian Lewis: Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting to the House that there will be no difference in turnout in different parts of the country, when there are Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and other comparable elections going on in some parts, local elections of some form going on in others, and no elections going on at all in others? The fact is that some people will vote in the referendum if they are at the poll, but might not have gone to the poll if it were not for those other elections. We need a level playing field to get a representative result.

Mark Harper: I simply do not accept my hon. Friend's argument. If we look at the general election this year and turnouts across the country, we see that there were some constituencies where the turnout percentage was in the 70s or perhaps even in the 80s, and constituencies where it was in the 50s. Every voter had the same opportunity to vote, but turnout across the country varied. That will inevitably be the case in the referendum, and I do not think that there is anything sinister in that at all.
	One of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), which I am glad to be able to address-that is why I did not want to keep taking interventions from him-was about the mechanics of how the elections were to be run. In evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, Tom Aitchison, the convener of the Interim Electoral Management Board for Scotland-one of the people who runs the elections-made it clear that the electoral professionals represented by his board would work to ensure that the poll was conducted in accordance with whatever the House decides. He asked that the referendum in Scotland
	"be conducted on Scottish Parliamentary Boundaries"
	to make sure that there was
	"an efficient, clear and cost effective process",
	and said that
	"the relevant Order should be amended to allow the Scottish Parliamentary elections to be formally combined with the referendum."
	He added:
	"It is our current understanding that both of these proposals have been adopted".
	He is quite right, and we have listened. On 25 October, when we debate how the elections will be combined, it will be clear that we have looked at the administrative challenges and sought to make sure that the combined elections on 5 May can be conducted in the most sensible way possible.

Thomas Docherty: rose-

Mark Harper: I am just about to deal with the hon. Gentleman's second point, which was about the cost of the count. It is perfectly clear-we acknowledge it-that some aspects of combination will require more resources than a stand-alone poll would, but that will be very much outweighed by the significant savings made by hiring polling stations and staff for one day rather than two. He is perfectly right that there are some increases in cost as a result of combining, but the overall saving is quite significant. It is about £30 million, which will be shared between the UK budget and the budgets of the devolved Administrations.

Thomas Docherty: In July, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and I tabled questions about what estimate the Government had or had not made of the costs to local authorities, and the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments. The answers that we got back eventually were that the Government had made no estimate at all. Is the Minister now telling us that he has made estimates of the additional costs, and if so, what are they?

Mark Harper: The overall cost saving from combining the polls is £30 million. That is our best estimate looking at the details of running those elections across the country. It is a pretty good estimate and the one that we stick by, and the saving is significant. It is not the reason for combining the elections, but there is a significant benefit in doing so.
	I welcome the shadow Justice Secretary to his position and look forward to working with him, perhaps not on this issue, but on our programme of political reform. He drew attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was not here, although he acknowledged that my right hon. Friend had many other things to work on. All that I would say is that, as well as being responsible for political and constitutional reform, my right hon. Friend is working in the national interest with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and shares responsibility across the whole of government. One of the important things that he has been working on in the past few months, and I am sure has been working on for some part of today, is the appalling financial legacy left by the right hon. Gentleman and his Government-the right hon. Gentleman shares some of the blame, having been a member of the previous Government. We have still heard no apology for that legacy. So that is where my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been. We work as a team, and are perfectly capable of doing so.
	The shadow Justice Secretary said that we were rushing the legislation. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which he supported, had only one day of debate on the clauses relating to the alternative vote. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005-a larger Bill than this one-had only three days for Committee, Report and Third Reading. So in providing five days in Committee and two days on Report, we have provided a significant amount of time.
	The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said in one of his interventions that his constituents did not want any fiddling about with the constitution. He had clearly forgotten that the proposal for an AV referendum was in his own party's manifesto and that he supported it in the previous legislation before the election.
	I shall deal with one or two points that we have not covered, conscious that the Committee probably does not want me to do so at great length. I am grateful for the kind words of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). I was disappointed that he was not at the time he made his speech planning to support the Government, but I hope that he may have reconsidered. I am happy to be on what he described as a sticky wicket. I want to correct one point. The coalition agreement to have a referendum was not a deal done behind closed doors. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was leader of the Opposition, came and put that point to members of the parliamentary party, as my hon. Friend will remember, before the agreement was reached with the Liberal Democrats.

Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Harper: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to make some progress.

Julian Lewis: Very wise.

Mark Harper: The Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee made a number of points. I think that I dealt with some of them in interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford made a speech with good humour. I think he was underplaying his reputation when he said that 90% of constituents did not know who he was. I am sure that if that was true and if more of them knew who he was, he would get an even more impressive result.
	The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) made some serious points about the operational issues in Northern Ireland. The franchise for Northern Ireland Assembly elections and for local elections is the same. The referendum would be conducted on the Westminster franchise. So there would be two franchises operating, but that would be the same position as when local elections are combined with a general election.
	As for the ID requirements, the legislation will provide that the requirements for the referendum and the Assembly elections will be the same. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends that the inconsistencies between ID requirements for voters in the Assembly and local elections will be dealt with before the polls next year.
	The final point that I want to make, I am sure hon. Members will be pleased to know, is in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who talked about consultation. On Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that we had not introduced the provisions on combination in the Bill because we wanted to take the time through the summer to work with the Electoral Commission, others in government in the territorial offices and with electoral administrators across the United Kingdom. I have written today to members of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, Opposition spokesmen and others with an interest in the Bill, including Members who spoke on Second Reading or who have tabled amendments, and leaders of parties represented in the devolved Parliament and Assemblies, to set out when we propose to table those amendments and debate them in the House, and to give them an idea of some of the provisions. I hope that that is helpful-indeed, it was intended to be so. In conclusion, I urge right hon. and hon. Members to resist any amendments that are pressed to a Division, and I urge hon. Members thinking of pressing their amendments not to do so.

Angus MacNeil: To recap the debate, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) made a very good speech majoring on fairness. He mentioned missing the bus, and it seems to me that the Deputy Prime Minister missed the bus on fairness with his differential treatment of voters. The hon. Gentleman's amendment cites six months; I cite 18 months as a maximum. The point of agreement is that the date must be changed to prevent the differential treatment of voters. He also made a good point about the BBC. Not understanding the voters has been a problem with the media, and with media management and presentation. Only 3% of the BBC output comes from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which constitute 17% of the UK population.
	The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), an apostle of AV, naturally supports AV, but he does not support the date. I look forward to seeing him in the Lobby, and I am sure that narrow party political considerations will not prevent him from voting. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), a fair and progressive person if ever there were one, made a good speech. His arguments were on the issues, not on side calculations for party political gain. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) repeated the point that the devolved Governments were not consulted and that there will be differential treatment across the UK. He argued that the referendum should be held in September-I am not against that at all; the point of agreement is that there should be a different date from 5 May.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) made some excellent arguments. What can I say about her Gaelic pronunciation, other than that I expect to see her at the Mòd in Thurso by the end of the week, doubtless singing a Gaelic song? For Members who do not know what the Mòd is, it shows that we are more than two nations in one state. The hon. Lady said that she might need to examine her conscience. I would be more than happy to help her do so in the Lobby very shortly.
	The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) illustrated our veritable rainbow coalition against 5 May. She made practical points about congestion on election day at polling stations, which were underlined by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) and by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The hon. Member for Belfast East made a cracking, quick-fire factual speech, and she also hit on the difficulties with the media and with the Royal Mail. I only wish she had spoken to the absent Deputy Prime Minister before he landed the hon. Member for Epping Forest in it.  [ Interruption. ] She wrote to him, she says from a sedentary position. She also mentioned the opportunity for cross-party co-operation that has been lost in the north of Ireland. I imagine that outside Scotland cross-party co-operation is more needed, including in Northern Ireland.
	I am sure that the fire in the hon. Lady's belly had nothing to do with the fact that the Faroe Islands have drawn with Northern Ireland. Perhaps this is a good point at which to mention that I am chairman of the all-party Faroe Islands group, which will hold a meeting before the end of the month-everyone is welcome.  [ Interruption. ] I hope there will not be a differential turnout. Despite the Faroe result, Scotland are drawing 2-2 with Spain at the moment.  [ Interruption. ] Not very united at the moment, eh?
	The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) called for a level playing field, and he highlighted the difference between an election for a national Parliament, one for local councils, and no elections at all in the UK. He discussed his relationship with the leader of the Liberal Democrat party. The rest of us are not sure of any relationship at all, and might not even be able to pick him out in an identity parade.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), a renowned political tipster if ever there was, says that the hon. Gentleman is at the zenith of his political career-I am not sure what he means.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) told us of the reservations of Members of the Scottish Parliament; 5 May was on their timetable first, but it was ignored. My amendment allows 546 other days at least; of course there will be some days that we will wish to subtract. He supported an AV referendum, but he did not want it to be a democratic spoiler for Holyrood. He said that this was a deal between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories in support of Tory cuts. I put it to him that he prefers Tory cuts to independence for Scotland.
	Eventually, after three hours we had someone supporting the Government. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) spoke about jobs, and I can relate again that the hon. Member for South Antrim was tipping him for promotion. I was expecting a  Spectator award for him later in the year, but unfortunately he just kept talking and that seemed to slip from his grasp. He was given a good jolt of reality by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).
	The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) highlighted the fact that the majority of the speakers came from the devolved nations and regions of the UK. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) conceded that the referendum was not ideal, but it was what was on offer. I would ask him to stick to his principles. But to be fair to him, he was one of the few Lib Dems on the big Lib Dem issue in the Chamber. I was counting, and only 3% of the Lib Dem party turned up for the main part of the debate on their big, big issue.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) talked of the premature calculation of a political novice, namely the Deputy Prime Minister. He said that the Deputy Prime Minister was in thrall to 5 May. He pointed out that the public can cope with different elections on the same day, but it is the media, the political system and even the Electoral Commission that struggle. He worried about the Tories turning up in Northern Ireland. In Scotland, they are like the corncrake, almost a protected species.
	In a great contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) said that there were many reasons against 5 May, and that is what the Chamber heard tonight. There are many reasons against 5 May, and there is nothing for 5 May other than a tawdry deal between the governing parties. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) brought humour to the debate and illuminated internal Labour party thinking: vote for a referendum because the Lords will overturn it. He is supporting 5 May, and I will welcome that.
	The respect agenda should be alive and if it was, 5 May would not be happening. The Minister is a reasonable man and he batted heroically on a very sticky wicket. He personifies in the Chamber the maxim that one can disagree with a person's argument but still respect the person. This is not a veto. This is only on one issue. One must have respect for the other legislatures in the UK and they themselves will be consulted on this one issue once. If one opposes this it makes the assumption that the Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Irish Assembly are unreasonable people.
	I should not have to press the amendment to a vote. The Government should accept the arguments of all parties on both sides about the differential treatment of electors and the unfairness of this in the UK, but unfortunately I will have to do so.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 28, Noes 323.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendment proposed: 4, page 1, line 6, leave out 'must be held on 5 May 2011' and insert-
	'(None) 'shall be held on a date specified in an order made by the Minister, provided that such date-
	(a) shall not coincide with any poll or polls held for any parliamentary assembly or regularly held local government election; and
	(b) shall be at least six months after the commencement of the referendum period (as specified in Schedule 1).'.- (Mr Jenkin.)
	 Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 264, Noes 326.

Question accordingly negatived.

Caroline Lucas: I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, leave out from line 7 to end of line 4 on page 2 and insert-
	'(3) The questions that are to appear on the ballot paper are-
	"(1) Do you want to change the current "first past the post" system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?
	(2) If there were a change, list your order of preference, 1, 2, 3, for the United Kingdom to adopt:
	(a) The 'alternative vote' system,
	(b) The 'additional member' system, or
	(c) The 'single transferable vote' system with multi-member constituencies?".
	(4) In Wales, a Welsh version of the question is also to appear on the ballot papers.
	(5) The voting for the second question in the referendum shall be in accordance with section ( Counting of votes on second question of referendum).'.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government amendment 230.
	Amendment 140, page 1, leave out lines 8 to 11 and insert-
	 'Rank your preference for the system for electing members to the House of Commons (a) Alternative Vote (b) First Past The Post (c) The Single Transferable Vote.'.
	Amendment 204, page 1, line 9, after ' vote', insert ' plus'.
	Government amendment 231.
	Amendment 141, page 2, line leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert-
	 'Graddiwch pa gyfundrefn o ethol aelodau i Ty'r Cyffredin sydd well gennych chi. (a) Pleidlais Amgen (b) Cyntaf i'r Felin (c) Pleidlais Sengl Drosglwyddadwy.'.
	Amendment 205, page 2, line 2, after ' amgen', insert ' plws'.
	Amendment 142, page 2, line 4, at end insert-
	'(4) In Scotland, the following Gaelic version of the question is also on ballot papers-
	 Rangaich do roghainn a thaobh an t-siostaim taghaidh buill gu Taigh nan Cumantan? (a) Bhòt Eadar-roghnach (b) A'Chiad Bhuannaiche (c) Bhòt Mhalairteach Shingilte.'.
	Amendment 14, in schedule 1, page 15, line 30 leave out
	'in favour of each answer to the question'
	and insert
	'in answer to the questions'.
	Amendment 15, page 19, line 24, leave out 'question' and insert 'questions'.
	Amendment 16, in schedule 2, page 26, line 39, leave out 'question' and insert 'questions'.
	Amendment 17, line 17, leave out 'answer' and insert 'answers'.
	Amendment 18, page 32, line 16, after 'only', insert
	'in relation to each question'.
	Amendment 19, page 47, line 22, leave out 'to the referendum question' and insert
	'either or both of the referendum questions'.
	Amendment 143, page 54, leave out lines 7 to 16 and insert
	'In England the ballot shall be as follows:
	
		
			 Front of ballot paper  
			  Rank your preference for the system for electing members to the House of Commons  Please rank in order of preference (1,2,3)   You must mark at least one number on the ballot  
			 Alternative Vote  
			 First Past the Post  
			 Single Transferable Vote  
		
	
	In Wales, the ballot paper shall be as follows:
	
		
			 Front of ballot paper  
			  Graddiwch pa gyfundrefn o ethol aelodau i Ty'r Cyffredin sydd well gennych chi Rhowch pa gynfundrefn sydd well gennych chi yn ôl trefn blaenoriaeth (1,2,3)  Rhaid i chi farcio o leiaf un rhif ar y papur pleidleisio.  Rank your preference for the system for electing members to the House of Commons   Please Rank in order of preference (1,2,3)  You must mark at least one number on the ballot. 
			 Pleidlais Amgen/ Alternative Vote  
			 Cyntaf i'r Felin/ First Past the Post  
			 Pleidlais Sengl Drosglwyddadwy/ Single Transferable Vote  
		
	
	In Scotland, the ballot paper shall be as follows:
	
		
			 Front of ballot paper  
			 Rangaich do roghainn a thaobh an t-siostaim taghaidh buill gu Taigh nan Cumantan  Rangaich iad a rèir do roghainn (1,2,3)  Feumaidh tu co-dhiù aon àireamh a chomharrachadh sa bhaileat.   Rank your preference for the system for electing members to the House of Commons  Please Rank in order of preference (1,2,3)  You must mark at least one number on the ballot. 
			 Bhòt Eadar-rognach/ Alternative Vote  
			 A'Chiad Bhuannaiche/ First Past the Post  
			 Bhòt Mhalairteach Shinglite/ Single Transferable Vote  
		
	
	Amendment 20, page 54, leave out lines 9 to 16 and insert-
	
		
			 Vote (X) once for question 1 
			 1. Do you want to change the current "first past the post" system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons Yes  
			  No  
			 Then list your preference for what new system might be adopted by numbering 1, 2, 3 for question 2 
			 2. If there was a change do you want the United Kingdom to adopt: 
			 (a) The "alternative vote" system or   
			 (b) The "additional member system" or   
			 (c) The "single transferable vote" system with three member constituencies?'.   
		
	
	Government amendment 232.
	Amendment 223, page 54, line 12, after 'vote', insert 'plus'.
	Amendment 21, page 55, leave out line 3.
	Amendment 22, page 55, line 4, leave out 'question' and insert 'questions'.
	Amendment 23, page 55, line 5, leave out 'question' and insert' questions'.
	Amendment 24, page 55, leave out line 20.
	Amendment 25, page 55, line 25, leave out 'question' and insert 'questions'.
	Amendment 26, page 55, line 26, leave out 'question' and insert 'questions'.
	Amendment 27, page 55, line 27, leave out 'question' and insert 'questions'.
	Amendment 28, page 55, line 32, leave out 'question' and insert 'questions'.
	Amendment 46, page 57, line 15,after 'only', insert
	'in relation to question 1, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2'.
	Amendment 47, page 57, line 18, leave out 'you are voting for' and insert
	'to question 1 you are voting for, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2'.
	Amendment 48, page 58, line 32, after 'only' insert
	'in relation to question 1, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2'.
	Amendment 49, page 59, line 2, leave out 'you are voting for' and insert
	'to question 1 you are voting for, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2'.
	Amendment 50, page 60, line 6, leave out 'you are voting for' and insert
	'to question 1 you are voting for, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2'.
	Amendment 51, page 60, line 7 after 'only' insert
	'in relation to question 1, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2'.
	Amendment 52, page 63, line 15, leave out 'you are voting for' and insert
	'to question 1 you are voting for, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2'.
	Amendment 53, page 63, line 17, after 'only', insert
	'in relation to question 1, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2'.
	Amendment 54, page 67, line 5, leave out 'you are voting for' and insert
	'to question 1 you are voting for, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2'.
	Amendment 55, page 67, line 9, after 'only', insert
	'in relation to question 1, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2'.
	Amendment 56, page 73, line 5, leave out 'you are voting for' and insert
	'to question 1 you are voting for, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2'.
	Amendment 57, page 73, line 7, after 'only' insert
	'in relation to question 1, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2'.
	Amendment 144, in clause 6, page 4, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert-
	'(a) the answer "alternative vote" is selected in the referendum, and'.
	Amendment 8, page 4, line 28, after '"No"', insert
	'to Question 1, and the alternative vote system is selected in response to question 2 in the referendum'.
	Amendment 9, page 4, line 32, at end insert-
	'(1A) The Minister must make an order bringing into force section ( The single transferable vote system: amendments) if-
	(a) the single transferable vote system is selected in response to question 2 of the referendum, and
	(b) the draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament under subsection (5A) of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (substituted by section 8(6) below) which provides for multi-member constituencies, in accordance with subsection (4) of section 3 of that Act as amended by section 8(5A) below, has been submitted to Her Majesty in Council under section 4 of that Act.
	(1B) The Minister must make an order bringing into force section  (The additional member system: amendments) if-
	(a) the single transferable vote system is selected in response to question 2 of the referendum, and
	(b) the draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament under subsection (5A) of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (substituted by section 8(6) below) which provides for the additional member system, in accordance with subsection (4) of section 3 of that Act as amended by section 8(5A) below, has been submitted to Her Majesty in Council under section 4 of that Act.'.
	Amendment 145, page 4, line 33, leave out from 'if' to second 'the' in line 34 and insert
	'the answer "alternative vote" is not selected in the referendum'.
	Amendment 10, page 4, line 34, leave out from '"No"' to end and insert
	'to Question 1, the Minister must make an order repealing the alternative vote provisions and section ( The single transferable vote system: amendments) and section ( The additional member system: amendments).'.
	Amendment 11, page 4, line 39, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'subsections (1), (1A) or (1B)'.
	Amendment 206, in clause 7, page 5, leave out lines 2 to 11 and insert-
	 'How constituency votes are to be given
	37A (1) A voter votes by marking a constituency ballot paper and a top-up ballot paper.
	(2) A voter marks the constituency ballot paper with-
	(a) the number 1 opposite the name of the candidate who is the voter's first preference (or, as the case may be, the only candidate for whom the voter wishes to vote),
	(b) if the voter wishes, the number 2 opposite the name of the candidate who is the voter's second preference,
	and so on.
	(3) The voter may mark as many preferences (up to the number of candidates) as the voter wishes.
	(4) A voter marks the top-up ballot paper with a mark opposite a single political party list of candidates.'.
	Amendment 207, page 5, line 13, after ' How', insert ' constituency'.
	Amendment 208, page 5, line 16, leave out
	'ballot papers and so to determine which candidate is elected'
	and insert
	'constituency ballot papers and so determine which constituency candidate is elected, and how top-up votes are to be counted and so determine the allocation of top-up seats to political parties.'.
	Amendment 209, page 5, line 34, at end insert-
	'(5A) Top-up ballots shall be counted simultaneously'.
	Amendment 210, page 5, line 36, after 'no', insert 'constituency'.
	Amendment 211, page 5, line 40, after 'each', insert 'constituency'.
	Amendment 212, page 5, line 42, after 'which', insert 'constituency'.
	Amendment 213, page 5, line 43, after 'rejected', insert 'constituency'.
	Amendment 214, page 6, line 5, after 'each', insert 'constituency'.
	Amendment 215, page 6, line 7, after 'which', insert 'constituency'.
	Amendment 216, page 6, line 8, after 'the', insert 'constituency'.
	Amendment 217, page 6, line 9, at end insert-
	'(2A) After rule 50 in that Schedule there is inserted-
	"50A(1) The returning officer shall give public notice of the total number of votes given for each political party together with the number of rejected ballot papers under each head shown in the statement of rejected ballot papers and return this information to the Clerk of the Crown.
	(2) The Clerk of the Crown shall determine the allocation of top-up seats in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, by applying the D'Hondt formula to the total aggregated top-up votes in each of the four parts of the United Kingdom, as declared by each and every returning officer in that part.".'.
	Amendment 221, in schedule 6, page 144, line 29, at beginning insert-
	 'Constituency ballot'.
	Amendment 222, page 144, line 39, at end insert-
	 'Top-Up ballot
	Vote for one political party only. Put no other mark on the ballot paper, or your vote may note be counted'.
	Amendment 12, in clause 8, page 7, line 9, at end insert-
	'(5A) In subsection (4) the words are inserted at the end-
	"and each such report shall also provide for multi-member constituencies of three members, stating the name by which they recommend that each such area should be known, and for the additional member system as provided for in the Scotland Act 1998, as close as possible to 57 per cent. to be allocated for constituency representatives and the remaining seats to be allocated for closed party lists.".'.
	Amendment 13, in clause 16, page 13, line 3, at end insert-
	'(1A) Section ( The single transferable vote system: amendments) comes into force in accordance with provision made by an order under section 6(1A).'.
	New clause 3- The single transferable vote system: amendments-
	'(1) Within one month of the coming into force of this section, the Minister must lay before Parliament a draft of an order amending the parliamentary elections rules as set out in Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act so as to provide for a system of a single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies.
	(2) An order under subsection (1) above may make any amendments to primary or secondary legislation necessary to give effect to the use of the single transferable vote in the United Kingdom parliamentary elections.
	(3) An order under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
	New clause 4- The additional member system: amendments-
	'(1) Within one month of the coming into force of this section, the Minister must lay before Parliament a draft of an order amending the parliamentary elections rules as set out in Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act so as to provide for an additional member system.
	(2) An order under subsection (1) above may make any amendments to primary or secondary legislation necessary to give effect to the use of the additional member system in United Kingdom parliamentary elections.
	(3) An order under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
	New clause 5- Counting of votes on second question of referendum-
	'(1) A voter votes by marking the ballot paper with-
	(a) the number 1 opposite the name of the option that is the voter's first preference (or, as the case may be, the only option for whom the voter wishes to vote),
	(b) if the voter wishes, the number 2 opposite the name of the option that is the voter's second preference, and so on.
	(2) The voter may mark as many preferences (up to the number of options) as the voter wishes.
	(3) Votes shall be allocated to options in accordance with voters' first preferences and, if one option has more votes than the other options put together, that option is selected.
	(4) If not, the options with the fewest votes is eliminated and that option's votes shall be dealt with as follows-
	(a) each vote cast by a voter who also ranked one or more of the remaining options shall be reallocated to that remaining option or (as the case may be) to the one that the voter ranked highest;
	(b) any votes not reallocated shall play no further part in the counting.
	(5) If after that stage of counting one option has more votes than the other remaining options put together, that option is selected.
	(6) If not, the process mentioned in subsection (4) above shall be repeated as many times as necessary until one option has more votes than the other remaining options put together, and so is selected.
	(7) If no option is selected at the first stage of counting, the returning officer shall, immediately after that stage, record and make publicly available the following information-
	(a) the number of first-preference votes obtained by each option;
	(b) which option was eliminated;
	(c) the number of rejected ballot papers.
	(8) Immediately after each subsequent stage of counting, except the final stage, the returning officer shall record and make publicly available the following information-
	(a) the number of votes obtained by each option at that stage;
	(b) which option was eliminated at that stage;
	(c) the number of votes for the option eliminated at the previous stage that were not reallocated.'.
	New clause 14- Counting of votes in the referendum-
	'(1) A voter votes by marking the ballot paper with-
	(a) the number 1 opposite the name of the option that is the voter's first preference (or, as the case may be, the only option for whom the voter wishes to vote),
	(b) if the voter wishes, the number 2 opposite the name of the option that is the voter's second preference, and so on.
	(2) The voter may mark as many preferences (up to the number of options) as the voter wishes.
	(3) This rule sets out how votes are to be counted, in one or more stages of counting, in order to give effect to the preferences marked by voters on their ballot papers and so to determine which options are selected.
	(4) Votes shall be allocated to options in accordance with voters' first preferences and, if one option has more votes that the other options put together, that option is selected.
	(5) If not, the options with the fewest votes are eliminated and that option's votes shall be dealt with as follows-
	(a) each vote cast by a voter who also ranked one or more of the remaining options shall be reallocated to that remaining option or (as the case may be) to the one that the voter ranked highest;
	(b) any votes not reallocated shall play no further part in the counting.
	(6) If no option is selected at the first stage of counting, the returning officer shall, immediately after that stage, record and make publicly available the following information-
	(a) the number of first-preference votes obtained by each option;
	(b) which option was eliminated;
	(c) the number of rejected ballot papers.'.
	New clause 15- Commencement or repeal of amending provisions: Single transferable vote-
	'(1) The Minister must make an order bringing into force section (Single transferable vote system: amendments), Schedule (Single transferable vote system: further amendments) and Part 1 of Schedule 7 (Single transferable vote provisions) if-
	(a) the answer "Single Transferable Vote" is selected in the referendum, and
	(b) the draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament under subsection (5A) of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (substituted by section 8(6) (below) has been submitted to Her Majesty in Council under section 4 of that Act.
	(2) If the answer "Single Transferable Vote" is not selected, the Minister must make an order repealing the single transferable vote provisions.
	(3) An order under subsection (1) must bring the single transferable vote provisions into force on the same day as the coming into force of the Order in Council in terms of the draft referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection.
	(4) An order under subsection (1) may make transitional or saving provision.'.
	New clause 16- Single transferable vote system: amendments-
	'(1) In Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act (Parliamentary elections rules), after rule 37 there is inserted-
	 "How votes are to be given
	37A(1) A voter votes by marking the ballot paper with-
	(a) the number 1 opposite the name of the candidate who is the voter's first preference (or, as the case may be, the only candidate for whom the voter wishes to vote),
	(b) if the voter wishes, the number 2 opposite the name of the candidate who is the voter's second preference,
	and so on.
	(2) The voter may mark as many preferences (up to the number of candidates) as the voter wishes.".
	(2) After rule 45 in that Schedule there is to be inserted-
	 "How votes are to be counted
	45A(1) This rule sets out how votes are to be counted, in one or more stages of counting, in order to give effect to the preferences marked by voters on their ballot papers and so to determine which candidate is elected.
	 First stage
	45B(1)The returning officer shall sort the valid ballot papers into parcels according to the candidates for whom first preference votes are given.
	(2) The returning officer shall then-
	(a) count the number of ballot papers in each parcel;
	(b) credit the candidate receiving the first preference vote with one vote for each ballot paper; and
	(c) record those numbers.
	(3) The returning officer shall also ascertain and record the total number of valid ballot papers.
	 The quota
	45C(1)The returning officer shall divide the total number of valid ballot papers for the constituency by a number exceeding by one the number of members to be elected at the election for that constituency.
	(2) The result of the division under paragraph (1) (Ignoring any decimal places), increased by one, is the number of votes needed to secure the return of a candidate as a member (in this Schedule referred to as the 'quota').
	 Return of members of House of Commons
	45D(1)Where, at any stage of the count, the number of votes for a candidate equals or exceeds the quota, the candidate is deemed to be elected.
	(2) A candidate is returned as a member of the House of Commons when declared to be elected in accordance with paragraph 8(1).
	 Transfer of ballot papers
	45E(1)Where, at the end of any stage of the count, the number of votes credited to any candidate exceeds the quota and, subject to paragraphs 5 and 8, one or more vacancies remain to be filled, the returning officer shall sort the ballot papers received by that candidate into further parcels so that they are grouped-
	(a) according to the next available preference given on those papers; and
	(b) where no such preference is given, as a parcel of non-transferable papers.
	(2) The returning officer shall, in accordance with this paragraph and paragraph 5, transfer each parcel of ballot papers referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) to the continuing candidate for whom the next available preference is given on those papers and shall credit such continuing candidates with an additional number of votes calculated in accordance with sub-paragraph (3).
	(3) The vote on each ballot paper is transferred under sub-paragraph (2) shall have a value ('the transfer value') calculated as follows-
	
		
			 A 
			  
			 B 
		
	
	where:
	A = the value which is calculated by multiplying the surplus of the transferring candidate by the value of the ballot paper when received by that candidate; and
	B = the total number of votes credited to that candidate, the calculation being made to five decimal places (any remainder being ignored).
	(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)-
	"transferring candidate" means the candidate from whom the ballot paper is being transferred; and
	"the value of the ballot paper" means-
	(e) for a ballot paper on which a first preference vote is given for the transferring candidate, one; and(f) in all other cases, the transfer value of the ballot paper when received by the transferring candidate.
	 Transfer of ballot papers: supplementary provisions
	45F(1) If, at the end of any stage of the count, the number of votes credited to two or more candidates exceeds the quota the returning officer shall-
	(a) first sort the ballot papers of the candidate with the highest surplus; and
	(b) then transfer the transferable papers of that candidate.
	(2) If the surpluses determined in respect of two or more candidates are equal, the transferable papers of the candidate who had the highest number of votes at the end of the most recent preceding stage at which they had unequal numbers of votes shall be transferred first.
	(3) If the numbers of votes credited to two or more candidates were equal at all stages of the count, the returning officer shall decide, by lot, which candidate's transferable papers are to be transferred first.
	 Exclusion of candidates
	45G(1) If one or more vacancies remain to be filled and-
	(a) the returning officer has transferred all ballot papers which are required by paragraph 5 or this paragraph to be transferred; or
	(b) there are no ballot papers to be transferred under paragraph 5 or this paragraph, the returning officer shall exclude from the election at that stage the candidate with the then lowest number of votes.
	(2) The returning officer shall sort the ballot papers for the candidate excluded under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph into parcels so that they are grouped-
	(a) according to the next available preference given on those papers; and
	(b) where no such preference is given, as a parcel of non-transferable papers.
	(3) The returning officer shall, in accordance with this article, transfer each parcel of ballot papers referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(a) to the continuing candidate for whom the next available preference is given on those papers and shall credit such continuing candidates with an additional number of votes calculated in accordance with sub-paragraph (4).
	(4) The vote on each ballot paper transferred under sub-paragraph (3) shall have a transfer value of one unless the vote was transferred to the excluded candidate in which case it will have the same transfer value as when transferred to the candidate excluded under sub-paragraph (1).
	(5) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 45H.
	 Exclusion of candidates: supplementary provisions
	45H(1) If, when a candidate has to be excluded under paragraph 6-
	(a) two or more candidates each have the same number of votes; and
	(b) no other candidate has fewer votes, sub-paragraph (2) applies.
	(2) Where this sub-paragraph applies-
	(a) regard shall be had to the total number of votes credited to those candidates at the end of the most recently preceding stage of the count at which they had an unequal number of votes and the candidate with the lowest number of votes at that stage shall be excluded; and
	(b) where the number of votes credited to those candidates was equal at all stages, the returning officer shall decide, by lot, which of those candidates is to be excluded.
	 Filling of last vacancies
	45I(1)Where the number of continuing candidates is equal to the number of vacancies remaining unfilled, the continuing candidates are deemed to be elected.
	(2) Where the last vacancies can be filled under this paragraph, no further transfer shall be made.
	 By-elections
	45J(1) Where a vacancy occurs in any constituency, paragraphs (45A) to (45H) apply to the subsequent by-election.
	(2) Where more than one vacancy exists in a constituency when a writ for a by-election in that constituency is moved, only one by-election is to be held for the vacant seats and this rule applies as if the number of members to be elected is the total number of seats vacant in that constituency.".'.
	New schedule 1- The single transferable vote system: further amendments-

Part 1
	 — 
	Amendments of the parliamentary elections rules

1 Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows. 2 For rule 18 (poll to be taken by ballot) there is substituted-
	"18 The votes at the poll shall be given by ballot in accordance with rule 37A below, the result shall be ascertained in accordance with rule 45A below and the successful candidate shall be declared to have been elected.".
	3 In rule 29 (equipment of polling stations), in paragraph (5), for the words after "the notice" there is substituted- "Remember-use 1, 2, 3, etc... at this election-this is an election using the Single Transferrable Vote system. Put the number 1 next to the name of the candidate who is your first choice (or your only choice, if you want to vote for only one candidate). You can also put the number 2 next to your second choice, 3 next to your third choice, and so on. You can mark as few or as many choices (up to the number of candidates) as you wish. Do not use the same number more than once. Put no other mark on the ballot paper, or your vote may not be counted.". 4 In rule 44 (attendance at counting of votes), in paragraph (5), for "the candidate for whom the vote is given" there is substituted "the candidates to whom votes are allocated under rule 45A below".5 (1) In rule 46 (re-count), for paragraph (1) there is substituted-
	"(1) At the time when any stage of the counting or re-counting of the votes is completed, a candidate or candidate's election agent who is then present may request the returning officer to have the votes re-counted or again re-counted in respect of any or all of the stages so far completed.
	(1A) The returning officer may refuse to comply with a request under paragraph (1) above if in the officer's opinion it is unreasonable.".
	(2) In paragraph (2) of that rule, after "on the completion of" there is inserted "any stage of".(3) After that paragraph there is inserted-
	"(3) At any time before the declaration of the result, the returning officer may, if the officer thinks fit, have the votes re-counted or again re-counted in respect of any or all of the stages.".
	6 (1) In rule 47 (rejected ballot papers), in the heading there is inserted at the end "and invalid markings".
	(2) In paragraph (1) of that rule-
	(a) for sub-paragraph (b) there is substituted-
	"(aa) on which the number 1 has not been marked against the name of any of the candidates, or
	(b) on which the number 1 has been marked against the name of more than one candidate, or",
	(b) in sub-paragraph (d), for "void for unertainty" there is substituted "is marked in a way that does not indicate a clear choice as to the voter's first (or only) preference";
	(c) for the words after that sub-paragraph there is substituted "shall, subject to the following provisions, be rejected as void and not counted at any stage.".
	(3) For paragraph (2) of that rule there is substituted-
	"(2) A ballot paper on which a number is marked elsewhere than in a proper place shall not be deemed to be void for that reason alone.
	(2A) If a ballot paper is marked with the same number (other than the number 1) against the name of more than one candidate, that number (each time it appears) and any numbers after the repeated numbers shall be ignored for the purposes of rule 45A above.
	(2B) If-
	(a) one or more preferences are validly marked on a ballot paper, and
	(b) other marks are made on the paper which do not indicate a clear intention as to the voter's next preference,
	those other marks shall be ignored for the purposes of rule 45A above.
	(2C) A ballot paper on which the voter makes any mark which-
	(a) is clearly intended to indicate a particular preference for a particular candidate, but
	(b) is not a number (or is a number written otherwise than as an Arabic numeral),
	(2D) In paragraph (2C) above a reference to a mark includes a reference to more than one mark.
	(2E) Paragraphs (2B) and 2(C) above apply only if the way the paper is marked does not itself identify the voter and it is not shown that the voter can be identified by it."
	(4) After paragraph (3) of that rule there is inserted-
	"(3A) Where-
	(a) any mark on a ballot paper is ignored by reason of paragraph (2A) or (2B) above, and
	(b) the vote in question is not reallocated in accordance with rule 45A above, but would have been if the mark had been treated as indicating a preference for a remaining candidate,
	the returning officer shall endorse the ballot paper in question with the words "not reallocated" and an indication of the stage at which the mark was ignored.
	(3B) Where the returning officer endorses a ballot paper as mentioned in paragraph (3A), the officer shall add to the endoresement the words "decision objected to" if an objection is made by a counting agent to the decision.".
	(5) In paragraph (4) of that rule-
	(a) for sub-paragraph (b) there is substituted-
	"(aa) not marking the number 1 against the name of any of the candidates;
	(b) marking the number 1 against the name of more than one candidate;";
	(b) for sub-paragraph (d) there is substituted-
	(d) unmarked or marked in a way that does not indicate a clear choice as to the voter's first (or only) preference.".
	7 (1) For rule 49 (equality of votes), and the heading, there is substituted-
	 "Equality of votes: which candidate to be eliminated
	49(1) This rule applies to determine which candidate is eliminated under rule 45A(3) above in a case where-
	(a) there are two or more candidates with fewer votes than the others but an equal number to each other, or
	(b) there are three or more candidates, or remaining candidates, and they all have an equal number of votes to each other.
	The candidates with an equal nunber of votes to each other are referred to in this rule as "the tied candidates".
	(2) The candidate to be eliminated where there has been a previous elimination is-
	(a) whichever of the tied candidates was allocated the fewer or fewest votes in accordance with voters' first preferences, or
	(b) if that fails to resolve the tie, whichever of them had the fewer or fewest votes after the next stage of counting (if any),
	and so on.
	(3) Where there has been no previous elimination, or where there has been a previous elimination but the tie is not resolved under paragraph (2) above, the returning officer shall forthwith decide by lot which of the tied candidates is to be eliminated.
	 Equality of votes: which candidate to be elected
	49A (1) This rule applies to determine which candidate is elected under rule 45A(4) or (5) above in a case where there are only two remaining candidates and they have an equal number of votes.
	(2) The candidate to be elected is-
	(a) whichever of the remaining candidates was allocated the more votes in accordance with voters' first preferences, or
	(b) if that fails to resolve the tie, whichever of them had the more votes after the next stage of counting (if any),
	and so on.
	(3) Where the tie is not resolved under paragraph (2) above, the returning officer shall forthwith decide by lot which of the remaining candidates is to be elected.".
	8 In rule 50 (declaration of result), in paragraph (1), for sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) there is substituted-
	"(a) declare the number of votes obtained by each candidate (including any reallocated in accordance with rule 45A above), starting with the candidate with the fewest and proceeding in order to the candidate with the most;
	(aa) declare which is the candidate who (in accordance with that rule is) elected;
	(ab) declare the stage at which each eliminated candidate was eliminated and the stage at which the elected candidate was elected;
	(b) return the name of the elected candidate to the Clerk of the Crown;
	(c) give public notice of the name of the elected candidate, the number of rejected ballot papers under each head shown in the statement of rejected ballot papers, the number of votes allocated to each candidate in accordance with voters' first preferences, and for each subsequent stage of counting-
	(i) the name of the eliminated candidate;
	(ii) the number of votes reallocated to each of the remaining candidates, and
	(iii) the number of votes of the candidate eliminated at the previous stage that were not reallocated.".
	9 In rule 53 (return of forfeiture of candidate's deposit), in paragraph (4), for the words after "is completed," there is substituted "the number of first preference votes obtained by the candidate is found to be not more than one twentieth of the total number of first-preference votes obtained by all the candidates.".10 (1) In rule 61 (deceased independent candidate wins), in paragraph (1), for "the majority of votes is given to the deceased candidate" there is substituted "the deceased candidate would have been elected (in accordance with rule 45A above) had he not died".
	(2) In paragraph (2) of that rule, for sub-paragraph (a) there is substituted-
	"(a) declare the number of votes obtained by each candidate (including any reallocated in accordance with rule 45A above, starting with the candidate with the fewest and proceeding in order to the candidate with the most,
	(aa) declare that the deceased candidate would have been elected had he not died,".
	(3) For sub-paragraph (c) of that paragraph there is substituted-
	"(c) give public notice of the number of rejected ballot papers under each head shown in the statement of rejected ballot papers, the number of votes allocated to each candidate in accordance with voters' first preferences, and for each subsequent stage of counting-
	(i) the name of the candidate eliminated,
	(ii) the number of votes reallocated to each of the remaining candidates, and
	(iii) the number of votes of the candidate eliminated at the previous stage that were not reallocated.".
	11 (1) For rule 62 (deceased independent candidate with equality of votes) there is substituted-
	"62(1) This rule applies in relation to an election mentioned in rule 60(1) above.
	(2) The reference in rule 45A(3) above to the candidate with the fewest votes, in a case where-
	(a) there are two or more candidates with fewer votes than the others but an equal number to each other, and
	(b) one of them is a deceased candidate,
	shall be taken as a reference to the deceased candidate.
	(3) The reference in rule 45A(4) or (5) above to the candidate with more votes than the other remaining candidates put together, in a case where-
	(a) there are only two remaining candidates,
	(b) those two candidates have an equal number of votes, and
	(c) one of them is a deceased candidate,
	shall be taken as a reference to the candidate other than the deceased candidate.
	(4) Where paragraph (2) or (3) above applies, it applies in place of rule 49 or 49A above.".
	12 (1) The Appendix of forms is amended as follows-
	(2) In the Form of Front of Ballot Paper-
	(a) for "VOTE FOR ONE CANDIDATE ONLY" there is substituted-
	"Put the number 1 next to the name of the candidate who is your first choice (or your only choice, if you want to vote for only one candidate).
	You can also put the number 2 next to your second choice, 3 next to your third choice, and so on.
	You can mark as few or as many choices (up to the number of candidates) as you wish.
	Do not use the same number more than once.".
	(b) the numbers on the left-hand side are omitted, together with the vertical rule separating them from the particulars of the candidates.
	(3) In the directions as to printing the ballot paper-
	(a) in paragraph 2(a), for "the direction to vote for one candidate only" there is substituted "the directions beginning "Put the number 1 next to the name of the candidate who is your first choice" and ending "Do not use the same number more than once."";
	(b) in paragraph 2(b), for the words "the vertical rules separating those particulars from the numbers on the left-hand side and the spaces on the right" there is substituted "the vertical rule separating those particulars from the spaces on the right".
	(4) In the Guidance for Voters-
	(a) for paragraph 1 there is substituted-
	"1 When you are given a ballot paper go to one of the compartments. Put the number 1 on the ballot paper in the box to the right of the name of the candidate who is your first choice (or your only choice, if you want to vote for only one candidate).
	You can also put the number 2 in the box to the right of the name of the candidate who is your second choice, the number 3 in the box to the right of the name of the candidate who is your third choice, and so on. You can mark as few or as many choices (up to the number of candidates) as you wish. Do not use the same number more than once.",
	(b) in paragraph 2, the words "Vote for one candidate only." are repealed.

Part 2
	 — 
	Amendments of other provisions of the 1983 Act

13 The 1983 Act is amended as follows.14 (1) In section 66 (requirement of secrecy), in subsection (2)(b), for "the candidate for whom any vote is given on any particular ballot paper" there is substituted "how any particular ballot paper has been marked".
	(2) In subsection (3)(b) and (c) of that section, for "the candidate for whom" there is substituted "how".
	(3) In subsection (3)(d) of that section, for "the name of the candidate for whom he has or has not" there is substituted "how he has".
	(4) In subsection (4)(d) of that section, for "the candidate for whom any vote is given on any particular ballot paper" there is substituted "how any particular ballot paper has been marked".
	(5) In subsection (5) of that section, for "the candidate for whom" there is substituted "how".
	(6) Subsections (7) and (8) of that section are repealed.
	(7) The amendments made by this paragraph do not apply to a local government election (within the meaning given by section 204(1) of the 1983 Act) in Scotland.
	15 In section 113 (bribery), in subsection (7)-
	(a) for "this section the expression" there is substituted "this section-
	(a) the expression";
	(b) at the end there is inserted-
	"(b) a reference to voting or refraining from voting, in the case of a parliamentary election, includes a reference to marking or refraining from marking preferences on the ballot paper;
	(c) a reference to the vote of any voter, in the case of a parliamentary election, includes a reference to the marking of a voter's preferences on the ballot paper.".
	16 In section 114 (treating), at the end there is inserted-
	"(4) Subsection (7)(b) of section 113 above has effect for the purposes of this section as it has effect for the purposes of that one."
	17 In section 115 (undue influence), at the end there is inserted-
	"(3) Subsection (7)(b) of section 113 above has effect for the purposes of this section as it has effect for the purposes of that one.".
	18 (1) In section 117 (savings as to parliamentary elections), in subsection (2)(b), for "to record his vote for any particular candidate" there is substituted "to vote in any particular way".
	(2) In subsection (2)(c) of that section, for "recording his vote for any particular candidate" there is substituted "voting in any particular way".
	19 (1) In section 139 (trial of election petition), in subsection (6) the words "the parliamentary elections rules or", in both places, are repealed.
	(2) After that subsection there is inserted-
	"(6A) If the petition relates to an election conducted under the parliamentary elections rules and it appears that there is an equality of votes between any candidates (a 'tie')-
	(a) rule 49, 49A or 62 of those rules (whichever is relevant) shall apply for the purposes of the petition;
	(b) where under rule 49 or 49A the tie fails to be resolved by lot-
	(i) any decision made by lot by the returning officer under that rule shall, in so far as it resolves the tie, be effective also for the purposes of the petition, and (ii) in so far as the tie is not resolved by such a decision, the court shall resolve it by lot.". 20 In section 165 (avoidance of election for employing corrupt agent), after subsection (3) there is inserted-
	"(3A) In the case of a parliamentary election-
	(a) a vote shall be deemed in accordance with subsection (3) above to be thrown away only to the extent that it indicates a preference (whether a first preference or any other) for the person who was under the incapacity, and
	(b) any number on the voter's ballot paper indicating a subsequent preference shall be treated as reduced by one.".
	21 In section 166 (votes to be struck off for corrupt or illegal practices), in subsection (1), for the words from "election there shall" to the end there is substituted "election, then on a scrutiny-
	(a) there shall be disregarded any preference for the candidate (whether a first preference or any other) indicated by a voter who is proved to have been so bribed, treated or unduly influenced, and
	(b) any number on the voter's ballot paper indicating a subsequent preference shall be treated as reduced by one.".
	22 In section 199B (translations etc of certain documents), in subsection (6), for the words "in the case of a parliamentary election or" in paragraph (a) there is substituted-"in the case of a parliamentary election, must have printed the following words both at the top and immediately below the list of candidates:
	"Put the number 1 next to the name of the candidate who is your first choice (or your only choice, if you want to vote for only one candidate).
	You can also put the number 2 next to your second choice, 3 next to your third choice, and so on.
	You can mark as few or as many choices (up to the number of candidates) as you wish.
	Do not use the same number more than once.",
	(aa) in the case of".

Part 3
	 — 
	Amendments of other enactments

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41)23 In section 3A of the 2000 Act (four Electoral Commissioners to be persons put forward by parties), in subsection (7), for "votes cast for" there is substituted "first-preference votes obtained by".24 In section 1 of the 1986 Act (Parliamentary constituencies) in subsection (1), for "a single member" there is substituted "no fewer than three members except for constituencies named in Schedule 2, rule 6 of this Act"'.
	Amendment 224, in title, line 3, after 'vote', insert 'plus'.
	Amendment 35, in title, line 3, after 'system', insert
	'or the single transferable vote system or the additional member system'.
	Amendment 139, in title, line 3, leave out
	'if a majority of those voting in the referendum are in favour of that'
	and insert
	'or the single transferable vote system if either option is selected in the referendum'. '

Caroline Lucas: I am pleased to move the amendment that stands in my name and those of the hon. Members for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell). I welcome the fact that the Committee is at long last debating the possibility of a referendum on electoral reform, but it is crucial that the public choose the voting system, not the politicians. We do not often have referendums in this country, and now that we are planning to have one, the least that we can do is give people a real choice on their ballot papers. It is hugely disappointing that AV is the only alternative to first past the post in the Bill. As a result, the Bill fails to live up to the promise of genuine reform and of re-engaging people with the political process.
	Amendment 7 is about giving people a real choice of electoral systems, because it is essential that the referendum question is not set up by the politicians to promote their favoured system. Of course, I have my views about which system would be preferable-the Green party advocates the additional member system as the fairest-but our amendment 7 is not about promoting a favourite system; it is about giving the public the options and allowing them to make their own choice. Rather than simply offering a narrow choice between first past the post and the alternative vote system, our amendment widens the question, so that in addition to the AV option, voters are given the opportunity to express a preference for one of the other main voting systems in elections for UK institutions.
	There are two parts to our proposed question. The first part asks people whether they want a change from the current, first-past-the-post system; and for those who do, the second part offers the options of the alternative vote, the additional member system, and the single transferable vote, to be listed in order of preference. Our amendment is needed, because it is contradictory for the coalition to be talking about electoral reform while seeking to offer little more than a Hobson's choice, between AV and first past the post.

Alan Beith: I have every sympathy with the hon. Lady's amendment and the argument that she is putting forward. However, before she starts to attack the coalition, she must surely recognise that there is no possible coalition of parties that we could join in carrying through the present House of Commons a referendum that would allow people the choice of the single transferable vote, desirable though that would be, and her one-Member party in this House certainly cannot achieve that objective.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but perhaps I am more optimistic than him. I hope that the power of argument might just wake up our fellow Members.

Austin Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend agree that what we are doing is repairing the damage done by the gutlessness of the Liberal Democrats? They did not have the guts or the integrity to include in the referendum a question on a system of proportional representation, which they always purported to believe in. We are allowing the people to speak out.

Caroline Lucas: Many millions of people in this country will be looking at what some Members do in the Committee this evening, and they will be looking with a degree of perplexity, given that what we hear many Members might do runs counter to what was in their manifestos.

Stewart Jackson: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous. If there was a groundswell of popular support for the single transferable vote, surely the Liberal Democrats, just after the election but before they entered the coalition Government, would have been able to persuade the Labour party to push through primary legislation to deliver the single transferable vote. However, that was not possible because, quite frankly, the single transferable vote is not generally supported by the voting public of this country.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but in fact there are plenty of opinion polls, conducted by the Electoral Commission and others, that show that there is a majority for electoral reform in this country. We are not saying that that necessarily means STV; we are saying that we should let the people decide. It is not right that politicians in this House should basically stitch up the question and then try to present people with a Hobson's choice between two things, neither of which, as we know, people prefer.

Douglas Carswell: Given that it is not every day of the week-indeed, it is not every year-that we send out millions of ballot papers to millions of homes asking people to decide whether they want to change the electoral system, does my hon. Friend not agree that the least that we can do is allow them a proper choice, from the full spectrum, regardless of our personal preferences? Rather than confronting them with the politicians' choice, we should allow them a full range of options.

Caroline Lucas: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. In a way, it is pretty arrogant for Members to assume that the population do not have a view and cannot make a sensible choice. Are we really saying that first past the post is such a strong and popular system that it justifies such a narrow question? Recent history suggests that it is not. It is no accident that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, not one of the eastern or central European countries emerging from years of totalitarian rule chose the Westminster model. Similarly, is AV really the only system that we should consider if we want to change?
	I acknowledge that the alternative vote system has a number of advantages over first past the post and that, in some respects, it represents a small step forward. The Electoral Reform Society has conducted a thorough analysis of AV, and I share its assessment that there are some positives. Those positives include the ability of voters to record a sincere first preference, thus reducing the need for tactical voting; the widening of the political choice available to the elector; and the disincentives that the system offers for parties to pursue core vote strategies that ignore the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Lady agree that AV, which the Liberal Democrats have accepted and which they imagine to be a halfway house between first past the post and STV, is not a halfway house at all? I contend that it does not go even a quarter of the way towards STV-probably not even a tenth or a twentieth or a fiftieth of the way. It probably does not go even 1% of the way towards STV. The Liberals have been bought off more than cheaply.

Caroline Lucas: I agree. The alternative vote represents a small step forward, but we should be very clear that it is not a proportional system. We owe it to the electorate to put before them a choice that includes a genuinely proportional system. The debate is wider than whether we should choose AV or first past the post. The relative merits of AV as against first past the post cannot be said to cover all the arguments in a modern debate about real electoral reform.

Alan Beith: The hon. Lady is making a constructive contribution, but she must face the fact that, if she were successful in carrying her amendment, there would not then be a majority in the House in favour of a referendum at all. That is surely not an outcome that she would want.

Caroline Lucas: I find that incredibly disappointing and defeatist- [ Interruption. ] Well, it might be said that, had the terms of the coalition agreement been different, and had different priorities been at the top of the list, we might not have found ourselves in this situation. I believe that the role of politicians in this House is to do what we believe to be right, and I believe that it is right to give people this choice. That is what will be respected by the electorate.

Douglas Carswell: Does my hon. Friend not agree that there is something rather bizarre about the position of the Liberal Democrats? They have been arguing for STV for as long as anyone can remember, but, in order to cook up a coalition, they have abandoned their reformist credentials and are now happy to settle for something that is not even their preferred option.

Caroline Lucas: I agree, and I very much hope that Liberal Democrat Members will follow us through the Lobby to support this amendment. Even if we do not win the vote tonight, this could become a self-fulfilling prophesy. If some Members are not willing to put their bodies where their mouths are, and are not prepared to fulfil the promises in their manifesto, we cannot be surprised that people lose faith in the political process. This amendment is about restoring faith in the political process; it is about trusting the electorate and delivering on promises to treat them a bit better.
	My primary concern as we consider the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill is that it is the public who should choose our voting system, not the politicians. That ought to be a principle around which we can all agree. We can argue about whether to adopt AV-plus, first past the post, the single transferable vote or the additional Member system, but the principle should be that it is for the people to decide.

Stewart Jackson: Does not the real-world experience of the single transferable vote system show that deals are made by politicians in smoke-filled rooms after elections, after the people have had the opportunity to make their choices? One has only to look at the anecdotal evidence from such systems across the world to see that, in reality, the ordinary voter, having cast their ballot, is shut out from the business of governance. That is the result of the STV system.

Caroline Lucas: That is an argument against STV, but I keep stressing that what we are talking about is the right of the public to choose the system. When they have that right, we can have the debate about whether STV does or does not lead to decisions being made in smoke-filled rooms. The hon. Gentleman's assertion is rather ironic. He is concerned about what goes on in smoke-filled rooms, and perhaps he does not want the public to make any decisions on this. He does not want the fresh air of public opinion to be waved over our debate tonight, but that is exactly what should happen. That is why the public should decide.

Nicholas Dakin: Does the hon. Lady agree that, if we are going to spend £100,000 at a time when money is short, we should at least give the British people a full choice of options, rather than a limited one? That would represent better value for money. People have already had the opportunity to vote for a referendum on AV, when the Labour party put that proposal before them at the election. Sadly, we did not win the election, and there is no groundswell of support for a referendum on AV.

Caroline Lucas: I absolutely agree. It is also important that we do not underestimate the public. Some say that voters cannot understand the different voting systems, but that is a very patronising position and does not bear scrutiny. Voters regularly manage to make the best of first past the post, for example, despite the fact that it fails to deliver seats that reflect the votes cast.
	All the systems that appear in the question we suggest should be on the ballot paper have advantages and drawbacks, but none are so mind-bending that the public cannot be trusted to debate and, crucially, choose between them. We need to inject some health and optimism back into our political system, and we can do that if we give people the chance to have a real debate and a real choice. It should not be about whether or not there is sufficient agreement in this House for putting it to the public; it should be absolutely automatic that the public have the right to choose.

Ian Lucas: If the Tories and their allies were interested in genuine reform, would they not have produced a draft constitutional reform Bill? We could all have discussed it and consulted the public on it. Is it not the reality that this is a shabby political deal between the Tories and their allies on the Government Benches to fix political advantage? The only party that knows it would benefit from an alternative vote system is the Liberal Democrat party

Caroline Lucas: Unfortunately, I think that the hon. Member is right that this was a shabby political deal done in the very smoke-filled rooms that the coalition complain about.
	Our political system is sick, I argue, and getting this question right provides the only road to real recovery. The system is sick because swing voters in just a tiny number of seats effectively decide who is going to run this country. It has resulted in the targeting of funding at marginal constituencies and voters in most other parts of the country being sidelined, if not ignored.

Douglas Carswell: My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous in giving way. Does she agree that if the amendment were accepted and people could vote for a single transferable vote system with multi-member constituencies, they would effectively be returning to the Disraelian idea of three-Member boroughs, which is a profoundly Conservative idea?

Caroline Lucas: Well, I thank the hon. Member, but I perhaps agree with that slightly less than with some of his other more constructive interventions.
	Let me return to my final point, which is about more than what kind of voting system we select, as it is about reconnecting with the public. It is not long ago that we went through the expenses scandal and gained the sense that people were very disillusioned with this House and wanted MPs to clean up politics-whatever their preference of voting system. That is why I hope colleagues will support this amendment to depoliticise the question and give voters the option to express their real views on what electoral system we should have.
	Parliament came to seen with contempt by many, because it was seen to be acting in its own interests and not those of the people whom it was supposed to serve. If this amendment is rejected, people will reach the same conclusion once again-that Parliament is acting in its own interests rather than trusting the public to make a decision. A stitched-up referendum that denies people a real choice smacks of the old politics. Tonight we have an opportunity to create a healthy system, based on respect for the electorate and the creation of a real debate on a real question. I urge hon. Members to support amendment 7.

Mark Harper: I want to speak to Government amendments 230, 231 and 232, which relate to the question, and I note that similar provisions were tabled by members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, so their names have been added to the Government amendments. For every referendum held under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Electoral Commission has a statutory duty to consider the wording of the proposed referendum question and to publish a statement of its views on its intelligibility. Where the question is contained in a Bill, this duty is triggered when the Bill is introduced and the report has to be submitted as soon as reasonably practicable after that. The commission completed the process for the referendum on the current voting system on 30 September.
	Most people whom the Electoral Commission consulted felt that the existing question, as proposed by the Government in the Bill, was neutral and not biased. Many considered it to be clear, direct, concise and straightforward. Others, however, found it difficult to understand and confusing. The commission has therefore suggested that the question should be changed to read:
	"At present, the UK uses the 'first past the post' system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the 'alternative vote' system be used instead?"
	The proposal for a two-sentence question, rather than the one-sentence question proposed by the Government, was based on evidence from the commission's public opinion research, which involved focus groups and interviews with members of the public as well as input from experts on plain language. The redraft avoids some of the slightly complex language in the original question, abbreviates some of the terminology, and splits the one long sentence in the original into two shorter ones.

Bernard Jenkin: If my hon. Friend studies the focus group research conducted by the Electoral Commission, he will see that what voters found most confusing about the question was the term "alternative vote". Voters have very little idea what that is. Now the Electoral Commission has told us that it will produce literature explaining what it is to voters, but would it not be better to give the alternative vote system its proper name, which is, in fact, "optional preferential voting with instant run-off"? That would explain exactly what it is, leaving no ambiguity.

Mark Harper: I expected my hon. Friend to make the point that he has just made, because I have seen his amendment to that effect. Although what he says is accurate, I do not think that putting the question in that way would lead to an improvement-

Bernard Jenkin: It might put people off.

Mark Harper: That may well be the case, and my hon. Friend and I might find that a very happy outcome, but when the Government drafted the original question we were very clear about the fact-which was confirmed by the Electoral Commission's research-that it was neutral and not biased. The Government's position is that we very much want the referendum, but are neutral about the outcome. The two coalition parties are not neutral about it, but the Government are: that is, Ministers are neutral in their capacity as Ministers. I am glad that the commission found that our question was neutral and not biased.
	However, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) has hit on a good point: the need to ensure that voters know what they are voting on. We thought it important to include in the Bill the details of the specific form of alternative vote that would be brought into effect in the event of a "yes" vote in the referendum. My hon. Friend characterised it correctly as an optional preferential system. No doubt the Electoral Commission will conduct some education in a neutral and unbiased way. The two campaigns will also explain not just the mechanics of the system, but the outcomes and potential impact of introducing it or retaining the existing system. I am convinced that by the end of the campaign, voters will be in no doubt about the consequences, and will therefore be able to make a very clear decision on 5 May next year.

George Eustice: I think that the Electoral Commission's wording is a big improvement. It removes words such as "adopt", which had biased connotations in the original. I have studied the commission's research. According to one of its findings,
	"Some people thought that the reason for changing the voting system was because the last election had resulted in a hung Parliament and that perhaps AV would avoid that."
	There is clearly a great deal of confusion about AV, which will actually lead to more rather than fewer hung Parliaments.
	There is a second problem. In fact, AV is simply a second-rate version of first past the post. Let me make another suggestion about the wording. Perhaps it should refer to a "one person, one vote" system, which is what we have now, versus a multiple voting system in which some people receive more votes than others-which is basically what AV is.

Mark Harper: I think that my hon. Friend is anticipating the referendum campaign. Tempted though I am, he would not expect Ministers to be drawn into a debate about the merits of different electoral systems at the Dispatch Box. That will take place when we have the referendum. However, he made a good point about the need to engage in a good debate about the issue. The Electoral Commission did say in its research findings that some members of the public had trouble with language when it came to the use of the words "Parliament" and "House of Commons". Thinking back to the previous debate and the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), we in this House should consider members of the public who do not take an enormous interest in, or spend a great deal of time on, these issues, important though we think they are. We need to make sure we address those people, and not just ourselves.
	It is very important that the referendum question should be clear and simple to understand. The Government welcome the commission's helpful report. I have read it carefully and, based on the evidence that the commission presented, we have decided to accept its redrafted question.

Alan Beith: I must, on the grounds of language simplicity, draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Welsh version in Government amendment 231. Although my understanding of Welsh is not as wide and deep as I would like it to be, I have not often seen the abbreviation "DU" used for "United Kingdom" in Welsh. I therefore wonder whether it would be at all familiar to most voters, and whether it would not be better to spell out "United Kingdom" in Welsh.

Mark Harper: I am very interested in my right hon. Friend's views. Having a great deal of respect for the Welsh language, and being frank about my inability to speak it, I did not want to abuse it by reading out the Welsh version of the question. I did not intend to do that, and I am not going to do so. I have taken the precaution of talking to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. He is a Welsh speaker, and he has consulted a number of colleagues. We do not think there is a problem with the language. The Electoral Commission did highlight one potential problem to do with the yes/no question and words such as "should" and "should not" in Welsh. It felt that there was a risk but that, on balance, this was an improvement. We have taken its analysis on board and we have accepted its drafting rather than changing it, because if we were to change it we would have to go through another process of assessing the accessibility.
	The Government consider that the new version is no less neutral than the previous one. We do not think it alters in any way the choice that the question puts to the public, but we do think it is clearer and easier to understand, which is why we have accepted it. Our amendments therefore insert the new question into clause 1 in English and Welsh, and it is replicated in English only in the form of the ballot paper, which is addressed in schedule 2. This is supported by members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and I hope the House will support it as well.
	Let me make a point about amendment 7, to which the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) spoke. It refers back to the point to which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) drew attention. They were both right that many Liberal Democrat colleagues support either the single transferable vote or some other form of proportional system, whereas most Conservative party colleagues do not. The nature of a coalition Government is that we have to reach a compromise, however, and the compromise we have reached is that Conservatives have agreed to put the choice to the public and Liberal Democrats have had to accept that although they have a vote on a system that they prefer to first past the post, that is not everything they would have hoped for. It has been rightly said that there is not a majority in this House in favour of putting a referendum question to the public on proportional representation, and I think Liberal Democrat colleagues have been entirely sensible in reaching a compromise-as, I think, have Conservative colleagues as well. We on the Government Benches are clear that we want to put this question to the public. I agree with the hon. Lady that the public, not politicians, should choose the voting system. We are going to give that choice to the public and see whether they want to stick with the existing system or change it.

Caroline Lucas: I do not quite understand how the Minister can say he is happy for the public to make the decision at the same time as closing down the very options that the public will make that decision on. I think that, again, we have to say that this is about trusting the public. It is not about what the Government or the Lib Dems want, or what any individual Members want. It is about giving the public the right to choose.

Mark Harper: The hon. Lady has chosen a selection of things to put in front of the public in her amendment; it is just a different choice from that proposed by the Government. It is no more or less the choice of the public, however. Unless we were to have a ballot paper that listed every single possible electoral system in the entire universe that has ever been thought of, it will always, to some extent, be a choice designed by politicians.

Caroline Lucas: rose -

Mark Harper: Let me just finish responding to the previous intervention. Those on this side of the House have made a judgment, we are going to put that question to the public, and members of the coalition parties will then campaign vigorously. I think I have detected that Opposition Members too will be on both sides of the debate. We will have that battle and the public will make a decision.

Caroline Lucas: I just wish to explain that the options we have proposed for the ballot paper are not ones that we picked out of a hat at random. We were trying to create a set of questions that were most likely to be acceptable to the House by, for example, including both AV, because that was what was in the original question, and those existing electoral systems already used in some form or another in the United Kingdom. We were not proposing a random set of choices. Of course we cannot give 100 different options, but we can propose those voting systems that people in this country are more or less familiar with, perhaps because they have voted for the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. There is a rationale behind what we are doing, and this is not a random set of options.

Mark Harper: It sounds as if the hon. Lady and those on the Government Benches are doing the same thing; we are putting to the House amendments that we think will get support. If she wishes to test hers and we test ours, we will see which of us has made the right judgment about which will get the support of the majority of Members in this House.

Angus MacNeil: Surely it is better to give the public a choice of three or perhaps four electoral systems that are commonly used throughout the United Kingdom, rather than a very narrow restricted choice of two, which seem to have been the subject of some sort of agreement in the smoke-filled rooms of this new coalition. Surely the public should be trusted and allowed to choose for themselves.

Mark Harper: Opposition Members seem awfully obsessed by smoke-filled rooms. Given that this House voted in the previous Parliament to ban smoking in public places, I have not detected a lot of smoke in any of the rooms where we have had our discussions.
	As I said, choices will be put to the House this evening; if the opinion of the House is tested, the House can make a judgment about which of the questions it finds most acceptable. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendments that I have proposed, which the Government have tabled. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is perfectly free to test hers too, and we will see where the balance of opinion in the House lies. Given that we have only 18 minutes left and we are dealing with a number of amendments, I shall draw my remarks to a close and allow the debate to continue.

Chris Bryant: May I say first to the Minister that one of the things that has crept into the contributions made from that Dispatch Box of late is a differentiation of a Minister as a Minister from a Minister when he or she is not acting in a ministerial capacity in some way? That is a dangerous concept to begin to adumbrate, because Ministers have to act, to some degree, with collective responsibility. Once that starts to fall apart, government starts to fall apart.

Mark Harper: I made it clear that the coalition agreement says that there will be, and the Government's policy is for there to be, a referendum on the voting system, offering a choice between first past the post and the alternative vote. The Government do not have a view on the outcome, and that has been made clear. The coalition agreement explicitly says that the coalition parties will campaign on different sides, so I do not think that there is any risk to collective responsibility.

Chris Bryant: I understand the Minister's point, but I just want to help him avoid becoming too much like the Deputy Prime Minister, because we would not want him to morph into a Liberal Democrat-I am sure he would not want that either.  [Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister started with this concept of a personal idea on the situation in Iraq, so I just gently say that to the Minister.
	The one thing on which I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister is what he said about Government amendments 230, 231 and 232 on changing the precise wording of the question. I think that the Electoral Commission has done a good job. It has looked at this and given us a better question, and we wholeheartedly support that. However, that is not the real point. The real difficulty was pointed out by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who said that the bit that the Electoral Commission discovered that most people did not fully understand is what "alternative vote" means. I am not going to go down the route of supporting his amendment 244, which proposes
	"optional preferential voting with instant runoff"
	because I do not think that his is an unbiased question and I do not think it is intended to be helpful. It was presented with the usual finish and cheek with which he presents his arguments to the House.
	The speed with which the proposals were introduced, and the lack of consultation between all the political parties in the House, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the wider community, mean that it is more difficult to be confident that by May next year there will be a full information campaign on the precise nature of the alternative vote system.
	I happen to support alternative vote. I was selected as the candidate in Rhondda by the Labour party under alternative vote, although as it happens I won on first preferences. I happen to be one of the very few Members of Parliament who, in 2005, was elected by more than 40% of not just those who voted, but all the electorate, including those in Rhondda who did not vote. I none the less support alternative vote, and I shall vote in favour of it in a referendum. I just wish that the referendum was not being held next year, and that there was not such a rush. This is one case where the Minister has perhaps got the better of the Deputy Prime Minister, in that the Minister's plans will almost certainly see the Deputy Prime Minister's desire to implement the alternative vote system fail.
	I want to say a couple of words about the "preferendum"-a term first coined, I think, in New Zealand-proposed in the amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I confess that I am surprised that not a single Liberal Democrat-not even a Back Bencher-has put their name to the amendment. I recall that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change said on 2 February 2010:
	"We will bring forward amendments next week to give people a real choice for a more significant change to fair votes and a proportional election system."
	The Liberal Democrat election manifesto pledged to change politics and abolish safe sex-safe seats- [Laughter.] That was a Freudian slip. It pledged to abolish safe seats
	"by introducing a fair, more proportional voting system for MPs."
	It continued:
	"Our preferred Single Transferable Vote system gives people the choice between candidates as well as parties."
	Of course, the Deputy Prime Minister himself said:
	"AV is a baby step in the right direction-only because nothing can be worse than the status quo."
	He wanted a proportional system. I think it is a sadness that the great, grand Liberal Democrat party is no longer- [Interruption.] Well, it is certainly large-

David Heath: rose -

Chris Bryant: -as the hon. Gentleman is about to show.

David Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that we did introduce such amendments, and that he and his colleagues voted against them?

Chris Bryant: Then why is the hon. Gentleman not presenting those amendments tonight? That would be the honest, decent and sensible thing to do. Instead, he is proposing a timorous beastie of a Bill-something that, in his honest heart, he knows he cannot possibly defend to his voters on the basis of his party's manifesto.
	Let me raise a few problems that I see with the proposal of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion. First, there are complexities relating to how the amendment would work with regard to the spending limits set both in the Bill and in other legislation affecting referendums. That is not least because the legislation, as it stands, presumes that there will be a yes-no answer. In other words, it presumes that there will be two sides to the argument, rather than three, four or-as there might be in this case-five. Secondly, the amendment makes the assumption that one should arrive at the decision by use of alternative vote; that is laid out in new clause 3. That gives rise to a problem. Finally, there is the problem that although the hon. Lady has presented some options, she has not presented all the options that might be available, as the starred amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) makes clear.
	I believe that it is not time for this timorous beastie of a reform Bill, which was cobbled together not so much to bring about proper reform in the country as to keep people in government. It has not been properly consulted on, properly thought through, or given the proper time to allow it to be successful.  [ Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons is sitting there on the Front Bench. He is now using arguments that I used, in which I was not very confident, when I sat on the Government Benches. It is about time he stopped using the argument about hypocrisy and brass neck when he is the one, despite the fact that we cannot see the difference between his shoulders and his head, with the largest brass neck of all in the Chamber.
	Let us not hear any more about new politics from the Government. This is a shoddy little Bill, not a braveheart root and branch reform-a Bill built on narrow party advantage cobbled between the two Ministers. Nasty, incongruous deals have been pushed through by tough whipping, as we have seen this afternoon-everything that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) used to condemn when he sat on the Opposition Benches. The only reason there were not any smoke-filled rooms for Ministers to sit in to cobble together their deals is that we voted for the legislation to ensure that people's health improved in this country. He did not.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made a sincere speech in support of her amendment 7, but it was wrong because she argued about giving more power to the people. Her amendment has nothing whatever to do with standards in the House of Commons. It would cause confusion and lead to the loss of the two most important factors that any electoral system ought to depend on-clarity and certainty. They are present in first past the post, but they certainly are not in amendment 7.

Douglas Carswell: I helped draft the design of the ballot paper under this amendment. Can the hon. Lady explain which bits of it she thinks her constituents would be unable to understand?

Eleanor Laing: I did not say that my constituents would not be able to understand. My constituents are very intelligent, and I am sure that they would be able to understand. I will not go into a long explanation at this point in the evening. I am merely saying, and I stick to it, that if amendment 7 were to become part of the Bill, the referendum would bring about a system-any of the systems in amendment 7-that would lack clarity and certainty. Any voting system ought to have clarity and certainty.
	Clarity is what amendment 230 is all about. I am pleased to say that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, of which I am a member, looked at the report of the Electoral Commission. The commission consulted extensively on the wording of the question, as the Minister has told us this evening. The Select Committee supported the suggestions of the Electoral Commission. The wording in amendment 230 is much clearer. It brings about clarity and certainty when a question is put to the electorate, as it should be. Therefore, members of the Select Committee tabled this amendment. We were delighted to discover that the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister also supported the amendment, and I hope that the Committee will support it this evening.

Austin Mitchell: What the hon. Lady thinks about the system is largely irrelevant. Amendment 7 is designed to allow the people to speak out-to put before them the choice of a preferential system. I have to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that this was exactly the wording of the New Zealand referendum. In 1993 it was decided that people did not want the first-past-the-post system, and they were given a choice about what system they wanted to replace it. In that referendum, almost 60% of people said that they wanted the additional member system. Only 6.6% said that they wanted the alternative vote.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is right, but New Zealand is a unicameral system, and I have argued and campaigned in the House for many years in favour of a second Chamber that is elected, not appointed, on a proportional system. We should have a Bill about the whole of constitutional reform, rather than picking off bits and pieces one by one.

Austin Mitchell: Why does not my hon. Friend see that it is daft to give the second Chamber a better representative system than the first Chamber? It is important that the first Chamber has a system that gives us representation according to the way people vote. That is the essence of proportional representation; that is all we are trying to include in the referendum.

Angus MacNeil: Having just heard the words uttered by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), it is a fact that for the electors here, we effectively have a unicameral system, because they do not vote for those who enter the Chamber down the corridor.

Austin Mitchell: Exactly-that is the point. What we want to do in the amendment is quite simple. We want to give the people the choice that the Liberal Democrats did not have the strength or the guts to give them. The Liberal Democrats are in favour of a system to allow people to vote in a referendum on the alternative vote, which is largely irrelevant-it is a system that allows people to list candidates in one constituency in order of preference-because they hope to benefit from the fact that they are everyone's second preference, but the first preference of very few people.

Simon Hughes: As far as I recollect, in New Zealand there were two votes in sequence: one on whether people wanted to have a change, and a separate vote on which change to have. The hon. Gentleman must also recognise what my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said: in the House, given the way in which the Labour and Tory majorities have voted, there is not likely to be a majority, whatever others think, for a wide proportional system. There is a majority for progress, but not for what we might want. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Austin Mitchell: I know that there are a thousand excuses for gutlessness, but that is just another one. The Liberal Democrats are going to have to live on a diet of their own words for the next few months. It was the leader of their party who called the alternative vote "a miserable little compromise" before the election. Now it is central to Liberal Democrat policy.
	The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) is mistaken about the referendum in New Zealand. The first referendum, which I have discussed, gave the exact alternatives that would be given in our Bill. I want to make the case for proportional representation. We are working in a system that has become a multi-party one. Fewer people are voting for the two main parties, whose share of the vote has gone down from about 90% to about 60%. A multi-party system is in the process of being born, with nationalists, including Welsh nationalists, Liberal Democrats, the UK Independence party, and all the rest of it. We are trying to fit that within the constraints of a first-past-the-post system that works well only with two parties.  [ Interruption. ] I forgot to mention the Greens-I apologise, but that is another indication of our multi-party system.
	We cannot fit the burgeoning multi-party system into a first-past-the-post system, which works only with two parties. The question is still why did the Liberal Democrats, in pushing for a referendum-I congratulate them on securing one-not give people the real choice between a preferential system, an alternative vote and first past the post, as that is the choice that they have to make? I would want them to choose the preferential system, but it is not up to us. It is not my views that are important, or those of Government Members-it is the views of the people. That is all that we are asking: let us consult the people on a system, and let them have their say. Every Member here thinks that the system that elected them must be the best system in the world, but that is not important. We are prejudiced witnesses, and we should give the people the power to speak. That is all that our amendment does.

Mark Williams: May I reiterate to the Committee and to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) that the Liberal Democrat party still believes in STV, has done so for years, and will continue to do so? However, the reality is that the advances that the Bill represents will be jeopardised if we adopt the amendment on STV. The agreement before us was made on the basis of a referendum on AV. Without that, we will not secure a referendum, so there would be no referendum at all. That is the reality of the debate. We still believe in STV, and this is a staging post to something towards which our party will still work, but there is no majority in the House for STV. Without that majority, there will be no referendum.

Angus MacNeil: We have just heard the Liberal Democrats say that they still believe in STV. I wonder whether that belief stretches 5 or 10 yards to the Lobby. I would wager that it does not go very far at all.
	In the moments that are left, I want to speak to an amendment that I tabled.
	 Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	 The Chair put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83D), That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 17, Noes 346.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 The Chair then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).
	 Amendments made: 230, page 1, leave out lines 8 to 11 and insert-
	 'At present, the UK uses the "first past the post"
	 system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should
	 the "alternative vote" system be used instead?'.
	Amendment 231, page 2, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert-
	 'Ar hyn o bryd, mae'r DU yn defnyddio'r system "y
	 cyntaf i'r felin" i ethol ASau i Dy'r Cyffredin. A ddylid
	 defnyddio'r system "pleidlais amgen" yn lle hynny?'.-(Mr Harper.)
	 Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 337, Noes 240.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again (Programme Order,  this day ).
	 The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	 Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

Business without Debate

Business of the House

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 13 October, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Justine Greening relating to the Draft EU Budget 2011 not later than three hours after their commencement; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may begin or continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.-( Stephen Crabb.)

PETITION
	 — 
	Archway Centre (Walsall)

Valerie Vaz: The petition is from the friends and users of the Archway centre, Walsall. The petitioners object to the cutting of funds and resources to the Archway centre, which has already led to the closure of some services. The petitioners believe that the intention is to reduce the number of sessions and to send service users out into the community. The community is not qualified and does not have the facilities to deal with people who have mental problems. The petitioners have noted that the cuts to the funding of the Archway centre may lead to more people relying on the services of the mental health team in Walsall and an increase in admissions to the Dorothy Pattison hospital. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that the Archway centre, Walsall receives adequate funding. There are 74 signatories to the petition in similar terms.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [The petition of friends and users of the Archway Centre,  Walsall  ,
	 Declares that the Petitioners object to the cutting by Re-think of funds and resources at the Archway Centre, Walsall, which has already led to the closure of food services at the centre - a vital service for many users who find it difficult to cook for themselves; notes that the Petitioners believe that the intention is to reduce the number of drop in sessions and to send service users out into the community, but the community is not qualified and does not have the facilities to deal with people who have mental health problems; and further notes that cuts to the funding of the Archway Centre may lead to more people relying on the services of the mental health team in Walsall and an increase in admissions to Dorothy Pattison Hospital.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that the Archway Centre, Walsall, receives adequate funding.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P000864]

YOUSAF FAMILY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.- (James Duddridge. )

Andrew Stephenson: I secured this debate to bring to the attention of the House the murder of three of my constituents-Mohammed Yousaf, Pervez Yousaf and Tania Yousaf-who were killed in Pakistan on 20 May 2010. I will start by setting out the facts of the case, explain what the family have done in their quest for justice and then touch on some of the wider issues and where I hope that the Government can assist.
	Mohammad Yousaf, aged 51, his wife Pervez, aged 49, and their 22-year-old daughter, Tania, were all British citizens living in Nelson in my constituency. Mohammad Yousaf had lived in the UK for more than 40 years, working for many years as a furniture manufacturer making beds, and for a period running a small business before retiring. He also helped his wife Pervez raise their six children-three sons and three daughters. One of those daughters was Tania. Born in Nelson on 13 September 1987, she attended Lomeshaye primary school and Walshaw high school, where she is fondly remembered.
	After leaving school, Tania married and had two young boys of her own-three-year-old Arien and nine-month-old Harris. She worked for Pendle borough council and then as a clerical assistant at business solutions firm Liberata in Nelson. Back in May, her manager, Wendy Smith, was reported in  The Times newspaper describing Tania as
	"a hard-working and conscientious member of the team who was always happy and one of the nicest people we have ever met. She had a lovely sense of humour and was always a team player."
	The Yousaf family decided in April 2010 to make a trip to Pakistan to arrange the wedding of their 24-year-old son, Asad Yousaf. They flew to Pakistan in two groups on 22 and 27 April. Asad's wedding took place on 5 May, and all family members returned back to the UK on 19 May, apart from Mohammed, his wife Pervez, their daughter Tania and her children. On 20 May, at approximately 12.35 pm, Mohammed, Pervez, Tania and Mohammed Anwar-another UK citizen-entered the village of Mararian Sharif, near Gujrat, Punjab. They were in this area to visit a family member-Nusrat Bibi-and also to pay respects at the grave of a deceased family member, Mohammed Zaman.
	The family entered the village in two cars, one being driven by Ghulam Abbas, the family's driver, and the other by Mohammed Anwar. After spending some time at the residence of Nusrat Bibi, they had lunch before proceeding to the graveyard. At approximately 2.20 pm, Mohammed, Pervez and Tania, along with Mohammed Anwar and Nusrat Bibi, entered the graveyard to pay their respects, along with their driver, Ghulam Abbas. It was then, while in the graveyard, praying and paying their respects, that they were ambushed by a group of armed men. The gunmen shot Mr and Mrs Yousaf and Nusrat Bibi with Kalashnikov rifles, before dragging the daughter, Tania, from the family's car. After dragging Tania from the car, the gunmen made her call her husband for help on her mobile phone. The call connected, but before Tania could explain to her husband what was happening, she was killed with him still listening on the line.
	To illustrate further the sheer brutality of these murders, I can today for the first time, and with the permission of the Yousaf family, reveal that at Tania's post-mortem, more than 100 bullets were removed from her body. Owing to the almost indiscriminate use of automatic weapons in the incident, one of the gunmen, Khursheed Arif, was killed, along with an innocent street vendor. An aunt of the gunmen was also injured, leaving a total of six people dead and one injured, three of the dead being the Yousaf family, who were British nationals and constituents of mine.
	The whole incident was witnessed by Mohammed Anwar and Ghulam Abbas, the driver, and they saw at first hand how the brutal incident unfolded. At 3 pm, a first information report was registered with the police by one of the eye witnesses, Mohammed Anwar, naming the murderers as Khursheed Arif, Sheraz Arif, Naveed Arif and Qamar Abbas, along with other unidentified people. The police attended the scene, and while they were present Qamar Abbas reappeared, and was recognised and duly arrested. Therefore, out of the four people named in the initial police report, one was dead, one was under arrest and two-Naveed and Sheraz Arif-were on the run.
	At this point I would like to try and shed some light on the motive for these senseless murders. If what I have described so far is not shocking enough in itself, these cold-blooded murders were not perpetrated by a lawless gang; rather, the culprits were actually known and related to the Yousaf family. The accused-Khursheed Arif, Sheraz Arif and Naveed Arif-are all brothers. Their sister, Nabeela Mahmood, was married to Kamar Yousaf, the eldest son of Mohammed and Pervez Yousaf, in 1999. Over a period of time, Nabeela and Kamar had marital problems, which eventually led to Nabeela moving out of the marital home around 12 months before the incident took place. I understand that the two families were keen to help to save the marriage, and there was frequent dialogue, with no indications that this would or could lead to violence. However, on 20 May the Arif family brothers turned up at the graveyard with only one intention in mind-murder.
	Yousaf family members have told me-I believe them-that if there had been any indication that those marital difficulties could have led to violence, their parents would not have travelled at all, or would at least have travelled with security, as is frequently the case in Pakistan. On 21 May-the day after the killings-the other members of the Yousaf family returned to Pakistan to organise and attend the funeral services for the three deceased. From the time that they arrived back in Pakistan until the time that they got home to the UK, their lives were threatened repeatedly by members of the Arif family.
	On the same day, following pressure from the Yousaf family and the media, the police made moves towards arresting the two accused men, Naveed and Sheraz Arif. Unbelievably, however, given the gravity of what is alleged, they were granted bail until 26 May. The Yousaf family continually protested to the police and the relevant authorities that bail should not have been granted in such circumstances, as they believed that the accused would abscond. On 26 May, the accused failed to appear at the police station, and they remain on the run now, five months after the murders took place.
	From the day of the murders until now, I have done whatever I can to assist the family in their quest for justice. In fact, I referred to the case in my maiden speech, when I committed myself to doing whatever I could to ensure that the family obtained justice through the Pakistani courts. The family have tried several different means to secure justice through the Pakistani judicial system. They have kept in constant contact with the police and relevant authorities in Pakistan. They have met Pakistani politicians and Ministers visiting the UK to highlight the case to them. The "Justice for the Yousaf Family" Facebook group has more than 2,500 members. The case has also been widely reported in both the British and Asian press, helping to raise awareness.
	I was also very grateful that the Minister took the time to meet the family and me at the Foreign Office in July to discuss the details of this case and what, if anything, the British Government could do to assist. The family accept that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's powers are limited, but I would be grateful if the Minister were to refer to that meeting and tell me what, if anything, he or his Department has been able to do since.
	Members will have noticed the significant number of people in the Public Gallery listening to this Adjournment debate tonight, which speaks volumes for the desire of the family and their supporters to get justice through the Pakistani legal system. Sadly, however, the killers remain at large and the family still do not have justice. Despite numerous expressions of support and warm words, there has been little progress on the ground in Pakistan. The police seem to have put numerous people in charge of the case since the murders, but the investigation appears to be going nowhere. Each new person who is appointed never seems to be given the time to look into the case before he is transferred.
	The Yousaf family, who still do not feel it safe to travel to Pakistan, have now employed a barrister in that country, at considerable cost to themselves, to have the relevant cases against the accused and their family members registered and heard. However, given the troubled past of the Pakistani legal process-and corruption, which remains an issue-the family seem to have hit a brick wall, preventing any further action or focus on the case from the authorities.
	The family appreciate that neither this House nor the Minister has any powers to intervene in the Pakistani judicial system. However, after five months, they have grave concerns about how seriously the Pakistani authorities are dealing with the case. The family and I hope that by setting out the case today, we will raise awareness of this incident not only here in the UK, but in Pakistan, and that, in doing so, we will bring pressure to bear on those who are in a position to help the family to achieve justice.
	I do not wish to diminish the importance of this horrific incident, but it is clear that the implications of whether the Yousaf family get justice or not go well beyond this individual case. In August this year, two other UK citizens, Gul Wazir and his wife Bagum from the Alum Rock area of Birmingham, were also murdered in Pakistan, and hon. Members will remember the case of Sahil Saeed, the five-year-old boy from Oldham who was abducted for ransom while his family were on holiday.

Richard Harrington: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) for bringing this matter to the House's attention. I, too, have been involved in cases relating to justice in Pakistan, and I want briefly to mention my constituent, Mrs Saeeda Dar, whose father has been held without proper trial for more than 20 months. He is 79 years old and a diabetic, and he is being held in very basic conditions. He is a retired headmaster, and his alleged crime was to write a foreword to a pamphlet. I have read a translation of that foreword, and it is very moderate and proper. Many people in Pakistan agree with his very moderate views. Many Members on both sides of the House are very supportive of Pakistan, and I am pleased to include myself in that group as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on Pakistan. However, we feel very strongly about these cases in which justice is not being done. I thank my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to bring that case to light.

Andrew Stephenson: My hon. Friend brings me to my next point. More than 1 million people living in the UK can trace their roots back to Pakistan, and many of them live in the constituencies of the hon. Members to whom I am grateful for having stayed to listen to the debate tonight.

Jason McCartney: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. I want to express my support for the dozens of Yousaf family members and supporters who have come to the House and stayed so late to watch the debate. That really is a testament to the importance of this issue, and I hope that they get some satisfaction and justice very soon. I represent a constituency with a rather large Pakistani community-and with many Kashmiris as well-and I understand the importance of the close links with Pakistan, particularly at a time when the British Pakistani community is doing so much for flood relief in that country. Does my hon. Friend agree that this would be a good time to get justice in this case?

Andrew Stephenson: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The crux of the matter is that many British Pakistanis hope to keep strong ties with Pakistan and visit the country for weddings, funerals and holidays. Many more who have founded successful businesses here in the UK look to Pakistan as an economy to invest in. It is worth noting that this Saturday our Foreign Secretary will join the Pakistani Foreign Secretary here in London to launch the British Pakistani Foundation, which seeks to encourage and support philanthropy among the British Pakistani diaspora.
	British Pakistanis will simply not visit or invest their money in Pakistan if the law and order situation continues to deteriorate and the judicial process seems incapable of delivering justice. Such an outcome is certainly not in the interests of Pakistan. For British Pakistanis to have confidence in the future of that country, cases such as that of the Yousaf family must be dealt with in a swift and fair manner. I therefore urge the Minister to continue to do whatever he can to help get justice for the Yousaf family.

Alistair Burt: I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) for securing this debate. Although he arrived in Westminster only relatively recently, we all know that he has a long history of working on behalf of the local communities that now form his constituency. His persistence in following this harrowing case is a further example of how he puts their welfare at the forefront of everything he does. I also thank him for offering me the courtesy of a copy of his remarks before the debate, so that I could more properly answer the questions he put on behalf of his constituents. I would also like to thank the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan), who has a keen interest in Pakistan, for his courtesy in attending the debate. That shows the Government's interest in and concern for these issues.
	I shall not deal in detail with the two interventions of my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Richard Harrington) and for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), but I am happy to receive any further written representations on the points that they raised, which highlight the width of the issue and the depth of concern about the matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle has raised.
	My hon. Friend has described a horrific crime. Mohammad, Pervez and Tania-a father, mother and daughter-gunned down, far from home and on an occasion that should have been a cause for joy and celebration. It is hard to imagine the anguish that the Yousaf family has been through and it is impossible to overstate how much they want to see those responsible brought to justice. Any one of us would feel the same. The description of the scale of the brutality that we have heard about tonight leaves one wondering how anyone who calls himself a man could machine-gun a woman to death in such circumstances. There is no cultural or traditional justification for killings of this sort. First and foremost, then, I offer my heartfelt condolences and those of the Government to the Yousaf family.
	When this Government came into office, we set out three priorities for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Safeguarding national security and building prosperity were two. The third is no less important-support for British nationals around the world. People expect us to be there and to help when they are at their most vulnerable. As the Minister responsible for south Asia, I am determined that we will fulfil that duty.
	The Yousaf family have been persistent in their pursuit of justice. They have, I know, seen the Punjab Minister for Law when he visited the UK, and they have spoken to the Pakistani high commissioner in London. The family came to see me, as my hon. Friend said, in July to discuss the case. These are all important efforts and I commend them.
	During the course of his remarks, my hon. Friend rightly asked what we have done as a result of that meeting. Our consular staff in Islamabad have remained in touch with the Pakistani police and have sought regular updates on their investigation. These updates have been passed to the family's police family liaison officer so that they can be given directly to the family. The fact that the police authorities in Pakistan are continually contacted underlines our continuing interest in the ongoing investigation and makes the Pakistani police aware of the continuing interest of the UK Government in the circumstances.
	What can be done further to help? As my hon. Friend knows, in the days following the murders, consular staff both in London and Islamabad were in direct contact with the Yousaf family. They explained how the FCO can assist the family in terms of support and advice, but also our limitations with regard to the police investigation. Since then, the local police have been in regular contact with the family through a family liaison officer and our consular staff have passed messages to the family through that route.
	As my hon. Friend mentioned, the Pakistani police have identified two suspects in the case, both of whom have absconded. Two other suspects have been bailed, and the case against them is now proceeding through the Pakistani justice system. At this stage, when there is an ongoing police investigation overseas, the main priority for us is to ensure that the family receive the information that they want and need as quickly as possible. Trying to gain access and to understand a foreign and unfamiliar system can be extremely distressing, but we can help to some degree. We can suggest the best ways for the family to raise any concerns with the local authorities. We can offer information about the local police system and the legal system. We can point the family in the direction of any legal aid that is available. Here in London, as soon as our consular staff obtain any new information from the Pakistani authorities, we will immediately pass it on to the family.
	In any case of this kind, whether at home or abroad, the uncertainty and delay as an investigation proceeds are a source of huge frustration for the family of the victims. They want to see the killers of their loved ones caught and punished as quickly as possible. Again, none of us would feel any different. I know that the Yousaf family are deeply worried about the progress of the investigation into the murders, and want us to do all that we can to maintain pressure on the Pakistani authorities to deal with the case swiftly and decisively.
	As my hon. Friend knows, our ability to act in individual cases is limited. I appreciate that he is asking-as are the family-what, if any, pressure we can put on the Pakistani authorities. The British Government cannot interfere in the judicial systems of other sovereign countries, just as we would not allow any interference in our own. Nor do the British police have jurisdiction. The investigation is the responsibility of the Pakistani police and judicial authorities. They will have their own methods of investigation, and their own local experience of similar cases. Difficult though it is for our consular staff, for all of us, and even more for the family, we cannot insist that the Pakistani police investigate this shocking crime in the same way as it might be investigated in the UK. We have no power to do so. Nor can we insist that the British police carry out a joint investigation with the local police.
	In many countries, it is a fact that the judicial process takes much longer than in the United Kingdom. When that happens, we cannot insist that a case be handled more swiftly than normal; but we will make representations to the local authorities if we fear that an investigation is not being carried out in line with local procedures, or if there are justified complaints about discrimination. I undertake here and now to my hon. Friend and to the family of Mohammad, Pervez and Tania that should there be such evidence in this investigation, our high commission in Islamabad will raise it with the Pakistani authorities.
	Let me also say clearly that I will remain personally engaged in this case-as will my hon. Friend-will continue to follow it closely, and will become involved as and when I can appropriately do so in a manner that might be helpful. I have set out the support I believe that we can and should offer to the family. If any of them do not think that we are providing that support, I shall be pleased to be told about it, and my hon. Friend will tell me.
	As was observed by my hon. Friend and others who have spoken tonight, this tragedy is not an isolated incident. That point was made very clearly and strongly to me by the family themselves when they came to see me. Perhaps that is one of the most worrying aspects of the case. It goes without saying that the vast majority of the many visits made each year to Pakistan by British nationals are entirely trouble-free, but over the years we have seen a number of British nationals die in suspicious circumstances in Pakistan, and there have been a number of violent assaults. Since October 2009, there have been nine murders of British nationals in Pakistan of which we are aware, in addition to those of Mohammad, Pervez and Tania. Indeed, there have been two similar cases since the Yousaf family's own tragic loss, with the deaths of four British nationals.
	We cannot say for certain why these tragedies have happened, but there is some evidence to suggest that most have resulted from a family dispute about money, property or marriage. Nor, I should add, are they exclusive to Pakistan. In addition to the work on this particular case, I have asked officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to consider how we can raise awareness of those recent incidents with the Pakistani community here in the United Kingdom. I will also speak to the Pakistan high commissioner, drawing his attention to the incidents and to my worries-and the worries of colleagues who have raised the issue in the House tonight-about their implications, and seeking his views on what, if anything, we can do to prevent such tragedies from happening again and how he and we can reassure families like the Yousafs that the Pakistani authorities will do all in their power to ensure that justice is done.
	I mentioned at the start of my speech the two other priorities for the FCO: safeguarding national security and building prosperity. The British Government are committed to a long-term, productive and friendly partnership with Pakistan. Events in Pakistan have a direct impact on our national security and the safety of our citizens, including those of Pakistani heritage. We therefore have a strong interest in helping Pakistan to embed economic and democratic stability. This has been particularly evident in the light of the devastating floods that have hit the country. The UK has led the international response to the flooding, encouraging our international partners to commit support to help Pakistan meet the long-term challenges it faces, and securing European Union agreement to pursue a step change in its relationship with Pakistan, including through increased trade concessions.
	All of this goes to show the strength of family relationships between this country and Pakistan, relationships which many Members have experienced, and continue to experience, in our constituencies. It also shows the importance of Pakistan to so many people in the country, and it shows the need for a sense of stability and security to be there in Pakistan for those who visit.
	All Members of Parliament are concerned for the welfare of our constituents wherever they may be in the world. I can assure Members that consular staff worldwide share the same concern and desire to do their best for British nationals in need of their assistance. In this case-where none of us can fail to be moved-I again commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle.
	We continue to extend our deepest sympathy to the family of Mohammad, Pervez and Tania, and I hope I have made it clear that the remarks made in this debate are likely to go some distance tonight and to be heard by many people. If in any way they help to bring a sense of concern to the authorities who are dealing with the case, and if they raise awareness of the danger to some-although far from all-who visit Pakistan, my hon. Friend will have done a very good job. We will continue to do all we can to ensure that the most important outcome of the case-justice for the family and those who have been killed-is eventually achieved.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.